Conclusion

There is cause for both optimism and pessimism in the application of algorithmic and data-driven technologies to assist people in extreme distress and crises, and to boost individual and collective opportunities for crisis support and flourishing. Vigilance is required to promote benefit and prevent harm, which won’t be possible without acknowledging the vast social inequalities and profit motives that are shaping technological development in this area. As populations reckon with new digital responses to age-old experiences of distress, anguish and disability, optimism comes from these technologies and their benefits being publicly controlled, genuinely shared, and firmly shaped by those most affected.

The development of robust data governance frameworks and a rich politics concerning the use of technology in care and crisis responses won’t be possible without inclusive public engagement, enforceable policies, and global cooperation. This can only be achieved with the assertion of collective claims over data, and acknowledgement of mental health as ‘indelibly connected to systems of technology, money and power’.⁴⁶⁹ Sharing benefits requires that the public and social value of data is directed toward the determinants of human flourishing and good mental health: equitable economic development, directing support where it is needed most, addressing discriminatory practices and histories of exclusion and marginalisation, improving the quality of care and service provision, and other measures known to boost societal wellbeing.

Kind Words by Ziba Scott in Science Gallery Melbourne’s MENTAL. Photo by Alan Weedon.