You may not access or use the Site in any manner that could damage or overburden any MIT server, or any network connected to any MIT server. You may not use the Site in any manner that would interfere with any other party’s use of the Site.
Vamos a realizar pequeños scrapping, que no sobrecargarán el servidor, así que estamos cumpliendo con esta parte y de hecho, después de que trabajemos, permitiran repartir la carga del servidor, pues una copia estará en nuestros servidores.
“la clave de la sustentabilidad radica en las verdades prácticas que cada uno de nosotros descubre en la vida cotidiana y que contribuyen a las actividades colectivas de nuestra cultura”
Estas verdades prácticas que nos reconfiguran a nosotros y nuestras instituciones, puede ser descubiertas también en espacios contrahegemónicos y conviviales, como los hackerspaces.
The Stack es el nuevo nomos o geografía política de la Tierra. Es la dimensión que necesitamos añadir a la tríada analítica del Estado, la sociedad civil y el mercado —así que ahora también tenemos la Plataforma o The Stack—. Dentro de ella la nube y el usuario operan una sub-estructura, que Bratton llama Black Stack, una ‘totalidad computacional’ de hardware y software que produce una geopolítica acelerada y que media y da forma a las economías como a las subjetividades, transformando el significado de lo humano mediante la proliferación de sus habitantes y usuarios no humanos. Más aún, para algunos activistas, las infraestructuras digitales son el ancla y medio esencial de las nuevas tecnologías de gobierno de las poblaciones, más allá de los estados y los mismos intereses económicos, y su propósito no es otro que el control, así se sea bajo la apariencia de la libertad de interacción (Invisible Committee 2014). Esta geo/biopolítica de lo digital tiene profundas implicaciones para el diseño.
Tothinkthatdigitalrightsincyberspacecanbeguaranteedandsecuredbyinscriptionincharters,declarations,andmanifestosofrightsistoneglectthatthedailyenactmentofrightsisanecessarybutnotsufficientguarantee.Conversely,tothinkthatthedailyenactmentofrightsincyberspaceistheguaranteeoffreedomistoneglectthatwithoutinscription,enactmentwouldnothaveitsperformativeforce.Beingdigitalcitizensrequiresstagingscenesofdissensusbyactingassubjectsthatdonothavetherightsthattheydoandhavetherightsthattheyshould.Themosteffectiveguaranteeofrightsisboththeirinscription(citation,repetition,anditerationindeclarations)andenactment(resignificationthroughacts).
First,itisundecidablewhetheranactisindeedcapableofproducingasubjectthatitnames.Forthatreason,withoutguarantees,itmustbedoneregardlessofitsactualeffects,fortheeffectsofcitationanditerationareasmuchaboutbringingthepoliticalsubjectthusnamedintobeingasaboutmakinganattempttoremindourselvesthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’mustbeperformed.Second,withoutnamingthepoliticalsubject,withoutcitinganditeratingyetagainthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,itseventualeffectwillnotbeaccomplished,thatis,bringingtheforceoflawintobeing.
[...] Our argument is that bills, charters, declarations, and manifestos would have stronger imaginary force if they also derived their performative force from everyday acts through the Internet: how people uptake positions as citizens of cyberspace, how they respond to callings to participate in cyberspace, how they create openings for constituting themselves differently, how they struggle for and against closings, and how they make digital rights claims in or by performing digital acts.[85] They would also have more performative if not legal force if they arose from not only a universal commitment but also regional commitments to understanding how the figure of the citizen is being articulated differently in cyberspace and how this figure is essential for bringing the force of law into being. The most significant space for thinking about the politics of the Internet and the political subject it has given rise to—the digital citizen—is the space between the inscription of rights and their enactment.
Hasta qué punto las criptodivisas y criptocontratos son una reiteración de este "yo, nosotros, ellos" y sus acuerdos a través de un algoritmo? La idea de inscribirse o excluirse son las únicas posibilidades. El resto de la política ocurre en repositorios de código y en "propuestas de mejora" técnicas.
El caracter recurrente del Data Week es una manera de hacer enactivos los compromisos que nos juntan como comunidad. La página es un acto de enunciación que es reiterado a través del Data Week
Asweaffirminchapter2,wethinkthatthecitizensubjectisnottheexclusivepropertyofthenation-state.Onthecontrary,thenation-statemayhavebecomealiabilityforupholdingthesubjectofpowerwehaveinherited.AsAllanwrites,manyoftheissuesthatcitizenjournalismraisesare‘setagainstthebackdropofincidentsaroundtheglobewherethenation-state’sideologicalappropriationofcitizenship—fromoutrightattacksonitslegitimacytothesteadyerosionofitsprotections,typically(andironically)inthenameofnationalsecurity—hasmadejournalismasastruggleover“therighttobearwitness”.’[39]Citizenwitnessingisanongoingandcrucialaspectofdemocraticcitizenship.TheInternet,bycreatingopeningsfordigitalcitizens,hasmadecitizenwitnessinganindispensablepartofapoliticalimaginary.Thisisnotwithoutitsdangersandperils(co-optation,assimilation,infiltration,taming,blocking,filtering,andsoon),butthat’swhatalsomakesitasiteofpoliticalstruggles.
El Estado Nación no tiene un monopolio sobre la noción de ciudadano (sujeto de derechos y deberes) y por el cotrario, puede estar impidiendo dicha noción. Incluso, si otros no se ven como sujetos o desde la perspectiva de los derechos, esto puede marcar un diálogo sobre los puntos en común que se tienen con ellos, por el simple hecho de que otros hemos heredado dicha noción.
Recuerdo un capítlo de Mr Robot en el que, Darlene, la hermana de Eliot, alegaba ser un sujeto de derechos y sus interlocutores del FBI le decían que no lo era bajo una nueva ley (Patriot Act?).
Thatis,ratherthanasimplequestionofchoiceorexchangeeconomy,citizensubjectsarecaughtbetweenthedemandstoparticipateandconnect—andallthereasonsandvaluestheyattachtothis—andtheinterests,imperatives,andtrade-offsconfiguredbyplatformowners.Butitwouldbewrongtoreducethistomerelytheinterestofplatformowners,whichareonlyoneelementinthemake-upofconventionssuchasbrowsing.Theconventionsofsocialnetworkinginevitablyembodythesocialandculturalnorms,rules,andcustomsofwhichcitizensubjectsareapartandtakepart
En mi caso, mi renuencia a participar de Mastodon tiene que ver con que no conozco mucha gente que esté allí y que no está conectada con la red de microblogging de la que ya participo (Twitter). Otra gente ve la misma dificultad en otras redes y tecnologías, como Telegram o el mismo Grafoscopio. En la medida en que una tecnología no le aporta valor al cotidiano, es difícil probarla, apropiarla y reapropiarla. Esto quiere decir que para aquellos a quienes nos aporta valor, es necesario construir y explicitar esos valores diferenciales para otros y alentar una comunidad dinámica (así sea pequeña) alrededor de dichas tecnologías emergentes.
Questionsremain.Whywasthereafilterinthefirstplace?Whowasbeingprotected?Byhavingunblockedtheresultofourquery,shouldwehavefeltreliefthatouractivitywasnotcriminal?HowwouldwehavereactedhadtheBritishLibrarycontinuedtoblockaccesstoBanksy’swebsite?
¿Cuáles son las fronteras del ciberespacio invisibles para nosotros? Hay burbujas que se aplican sin que lo sepamos, independientemente de si usamos o no un motor de búsqueda que construya dichas limitaciones, como Google, que lo hace ampliamente o DuckDuckGo, que lo restringe a la ubicación geográfica?. ¿Puede ese filtro se deconstruido desde lo que nos muestra el cliente web?
EvgenyMorozov,forexample,arguesthatopennessisconfiguredbypoliticalchoicesandinrelationtospecific‘digitaltechnologies’andthatthosechoicesshouldbebothresistedandpoliticallydebated.Butlikethemisfiresofcriticswenotedattheendofchapter4,controlisgivenovertohowdigitaltechnologiesareconfiguredwithoutaccountingforhowpeopleactthroughtheInternet,theconventionstheyrepeat,iterate,cite,orresignify,andtheperformativeforceoftheirengagements
subjectsofpowerincyberspacehavecomeintobeingthroughtheaccumulationofrepetitiveactions,throughtheirtakingupandembeddingofconventionsintheireverydaylivesinhomes,workplaces,andpublicspaces.Itisthroughtheactsofparticipating,connecting,andsharingthatthesehavebecomedemandsandlearnedrepertoiresthatarenotseparatefrombutindeliblyshapedbyandshapingofsubjects.
Hackers are ordinary
Forexample,whatresourcesofcyberspacedodigitallyequippedsubjectshavetheauthorizationtoaccessasaresultoftheworkingsofsearchalgorithmsandfiltersortheprotocolsthatgovernandnormalizetheretention,storage,sharing,anddiscoverabilityofinformation?[36]Iflegalityandimaginaryconfigurethecitizenasasubjectofpowerandplacedemandsonhertoparticipatedigitally(submission),whatwefindinterestinghereandinrelationtohowwehaveunderstoodbeingdigitalcitizensistheperformativityofparticipatingthatprovidesaglimpseofthecitizenasalsoapotentialsubjectofsubversion.How,forexample,doesparticipatinggiverisetosubversiveactions,suchasthoseofcriticalcitizenscience?[37]Or,asMatthewFullerandAndrewGoffeyputit,howdoinjunctionssuchasGoogle’s‘Don’tbeevil’maximbeliethepropensitiesthatareactivatedbyrelativelyunstablesociotechnicalarrangementsthataregenerativeof‘unintendedorsecondaryeffects’?
¿Cómo las infraestructuras legales y tecnológicas soportan la bifurcación y recombinación? ¿Cómo esto empodera otras prácticas ciudadanas?
Becomingadigitalcitizeninvolvesrespondingtocallingswhereparticipatingisoneofthem.Participatingdemandsspecificactionsofskillingandtoolingthatcitizensneedtoundertaketoequipthemselves.
Escoger un conjunto de competencias sobre las cuáles ejercer la ciudadanía.
Wecannotsimplyassumethatbeingadigitalcitizenalreadymeanssomething,suchastheabilitytoparticipate,andthenlookforwhoseconductconformstothismeaning.Rather,digitalactsarerefashioning,inventing,andmakingupcitizensubjectsthroughtheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion
Nosotros hablábamos de deliberación, implementación y seguimiendo sobre las decisiones, como forma de participación. Desde el Data Week estamos yendo del seguimiento a las primeras.
Tounderstanddigitalactswehavetounderstandspeechactsorspeechthatacts.Thespeechthatactsmeansnotonlythatinorbysayingsomethingwearedoingsomethingbutalsothatinorbydoingsomethingwearesayingsomething.ItisinthissensethatwehaveargueddigitalactsaredifferentfromspeechactsonlyinsofarastheconventionstheyrepeatanditerateandconventionsthattheyresignifyareconventionsthataremadepossiblethroughtheInternet.Ultimately,digitalactsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityinpoliticalways.
Toputitsimply,whiledigitalactstraverseborders,digitalrightsdonot.Thisiswherewebelievethinkingaboutdigitalactsintermsoftheirlegality,performativity,andimaginaryiscrucialsincethereareinternationalandtransnationalspacesinwhichdigitalrightsarebeingclaimedthatifnotyetlegallyinforceareneverthelessemergingperformativelyandimaginatively.Yet,arguably,someemergingtransnationalandinternationallawsgoverningcyberspaceinturnarehavinganeffectonnationallegislations.Toputitdifferently,theclassicalargumentabouttherelationshipbetweenhumanrightsandcitizenshiprights,thattheformerarenormsandonlythelattercarrytheforceoflaw,isnotahelpfulstartingpoint.
ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.
Ifcallingssummoncitizensubjects,theyalsoprovokeopeningsandclosingsformakingrightsclaims.Weconsideropeningsasthosepossibilitiesthatcreatenewwaysofsayinganddoingrights.Openingsarethosepossibilitiesthatenabletheperformanceofpreviouslyunimaginedorunarticulatedexperiencesofwaysofbeingcitizensubjects,aresignificationofbeingspeakingandactingbeings.Openingsarepossibilitiesthroughwhichcitizensubjectscomeintobeing.Closings,bycontrast,contractandreducepossibilitiesofbecomingcitizensubjects
Whatwemeanbythisisthatasaclaim,theutterance‘havearightto’placesdemandsontheothertoactinaparticularway.
[...] This is the sense in which the rights of a subject are obligations on others and the rights of others function as obligations on us.
Tounderstandcitizensubjectswhomakerightsclaimsbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,wearemovingfromthefirstpersontothesecondandthethird,fromtheindividualtothecollective.Weneedtoconsidertwoadditionalforcesthatmakeactspossible.Thetwoforcesaretheforceofthelawandtheforceoftheimaginary.
Grafoscopio también permite esos pasos de lo individual a lo colectivo, desde la imaginación y lo legal.
Onthecontrary,citizensubjectsperformativelycomeintobeinginorbytheactofsayinganddoingsomething—whetherthroughwords,images,orotherthings—andthroughperformingthecontradictionsinherentinbecomingcitizens.
‘Theforceoftheperformativeisthusnotinheritedfrompriorusage,butissuesforthpreciselyfromitsbreakwithanyandallpriorusage.Thatbreak,thatforceofrupture,istheforceoftheperformative,beyondallquestionoftruthormeaning.’[22]Forpoliticalsubjectivity,‘performativitycanworkinpreciselysuchcounter-hegemonicways.Thatmomentinwhichaspeechactwithoutpriorauthorizationneverthelessassumesauthorizationinthecourseofitsperformancemayanticipateandinstatealteredcontextsforitsfuturereception.’[23]Toconceiveruptureasasystemicortotalupheavalwouldbefutile.Rather,ruptureisamomentwherethefuturebreaksthroughintothepresent.[24]Itisthatmomentwhereitbecomespossibletodosomethingdifferentinorbysayingsomethingdifferent.
Acá los actos futuros guían la acción presente y le dan permiso de ocurrir. Del mismo modo como el derecho a ser olvidado es un derecho futuro imaginado que irrumpe en la legislación presente, pensar un retrato de datos o campañas políticas donde éstos sean importantes, le da forma al activismo presente.
La idea clave acá es hacer algo diferente, que ha sido el principio tras Grafoscopio y el Data Week, desde sus apuestas particulares de futuro, que en buena medida es discontinuo con las prácticas del presente, tanto ciudadanas, cono de alfabetismos y usos populares de la tecnología.
Ifmakingrightsclaimsisperformative,itfollowsthattheserightsareneitherfixednorguaranteed:theyneedtoberepeatedlyperformed.Theircomingintobeingandremainingeffectiverequiresperformativity.Theperformativeforceofcitizenshipremindsusthatthefigureofthecitizenhastobebroughtintobeingrepeatedlythroughacts(repertoires,declarations,andproclamations)andconventions(rituals,customs,practices,traditions,laws,institutions,technologies,andprotocols).Withouttheperformanceofrights,thefigureofthecitizenwouldmerelyexistintheoryandwouldhavenomeaningindemocraticpolitics.
Givenitspervasivenessandomnipresence,avoidingorshunningcyberspaceisasdystopianasquittingsocialspace;itisalsocertainthatconductingourselvesincyberspacerequires,asmanyactivistsandscholarshavewarned,intensecriticalvigilance.Sincetherecannotbegenericoruniversalanswerstohowweconductourselves,moreorlesseveryincipientorexistingpoliticalsubjectneedstoaskinwhatwaysitisbeingcalleduponandsubjectifiedthroughcyberspace.Inotherwords,toreturnagaintotheconceptualapparatusofthisbook,thekindsofcitizensubjectscyberspacecultivatesarenothomogenousanduniversalbutfragmented,multiple,andagonistic.Atthesametime,thefigureofacitizenyettocomeisnotinevitable;whilecyberspaceisafragileandprecariousspace,italsoaffordsopenings,momentswhenthinking,speaking,andactingdifferentlybecomepossiblebychallengingandresignifyingitsconventions.Thesearethemomentsthatwehighlighttoarguethatdigitalrightsarenotonlyaprojectofinscriptionsbutalsoenactment.
¿A qué somos llamados y cómo respondemos a ello? Esta pregunta ha sido parte tácita de lo que hacemos en el Data Week.
Wearguethatmakingrightsclaimsinvolvesnotonlyperformativebutalsolegalandimaginaryforces.Wethenarguethatdigitalactsinvolveconventionsthatincludenotonlywordsbutalsoimagesandsoundsandvariousactionssuchasliking,coding,clicking,downloading,sorting,blocking,andquerying.
WedevelopourapproachtobeingdigitalcitizensbydrawingonMichelFoucaulttoarguethatsubjectsbecomecitizensthroughvariousprocessesofsubjectivationthatinvolverelationsbetweenbodiesandthingsthatconstitutethemassubjectsofpower.WefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternetandatthesametimebringcyberspaceintobeing.Wepositionthisunderstandingofsubjectivationagainstthatofinterpellation,whichassumesthatsubjectsarealwaysandalreadyformedandinhabitedbyexternalforces.Rather,wearguethatcitizensubjectsaresummonedandcalledupontoactthroughtheInternetand,assubjectsofpower,respondbyenactingthemselvesnotonlywithobedienceandsubmissionbutalsosubversion.
First,bybringingthepoliticalsubjecttothecentreofconcern,weinterferewithdeterministanalysesoftheInternetandhyperbolicassertionsaboutitsimpactthatimaginesubjectsaspassivedatasubjects.Instead,weattendtohowpoliticalsubjectivitiesarealwaysperformedinrelationtosociotechnicalarrangementstothenthinkabouthowtheyarebroughtintobeingthroughtheInternet.[13]WealsointerferewithlibertariananalysesoftheInternetandtheirhyperbolicassertionsofsovereignsubjects.Wecontendthatifweshiftouranalysisfromhowwearebeing‘controlled’(asbothdeterministandlibertarianviewsagree)tothecomplexitiesof‘acting’—byforegroundingcitizensubjectsnotinisolationbutinrelationtothearrangementsofwhichtheyareapart—wecanidentifywaysofbeingnotsimplyobedientandsubmissivebutalsosubversive.Whileusuallyreservedforhigh-profilehacktivistsandwhistle-blowers,weask,howdosubjectsactinwaysthattransgresstheexpectationsofandgobeyondspecificconventionsandindoingsomakerightsclaimsabouthowtoconductthemselvesasdigitalcitizens
La idea de que estamos imbrincados en arreglos socio técnicos y que ellos son deconstriuidos, estirados y deconstruidos por los hackers a través de su quehacer material también implica que existe una conexión entre la forma en que los hackers deconstruyen la tecnología y la forma en que se configuran las ciudadanías mediadas por dichos arreglos sociotécnicos.
Alongwiththesepoliticalsubjects,anewdesignationhasalsoemerged:digitalcitizens.Subjectssuchascitizenjournalists,citizenartists,citizenscientists,citizenphilanthropists,andcitizenprosecutorshavevariouslyaccompaniedit.[7]Goingbacktotheeuphoricyearsofthe1990s,JonKatzintroducedthetermtodescribegenerallythekindsofAmericanswhowereactiveontheInternet.[8]ForKatz,peoplewereinventingnewwaysofconductingthemselvespoliticallyontheInternetandweretranscendingthestraitjacketofatleastAmericanelectoralpoliticscaught
Moreover,withthedevelopmentoftheInternetofthings—ourphones,watches,dishwashers,fridges,cars,andmanyotherdevicesbeingalwaysalreadyconnectedtotheInternet—wenotonlydothingswithwordsbutalsodowordswiththings.
These connected devices generate enormous volumes of data about our movements, locations, activities, interests, encounters,and private and public relationships through which we become data subjects.
IftheInternet—or,moreprecisely,howweareincreasinglyactingthroughtheInternet—ischangingourpoliticalsubjectivity,whatdowethinkaboutthewayinwhichweunderstandourselvesaspoliticalsubjects,subjectswhohaverightstospeech,access,andprivacy,rightsthatconstituteusaspolitical,asbeingswithresponsibilitiesandobligations?
While much attention is reserved for whistleblowers and hactivists as the vanguards of Internet rights, there are many more anonymous political subjects of the Internet who are not only making rights claims by saying things but also by doing things through the Internet.
Such a conception moves us away from how we are being ‘liberated’ or ‘controlled’ to the complexities of ‘acting’ through the Internet where much of what makes it up is seemingly beyond the knowledge and consent of citizen subjects. To be sure, one cannot act in isolation but only in relation to the mediations, regulations and monitoring of the platforms, devices, and algorithms or more generally the conventions that format, organize and order what we do, how we relate, act, interact, and transact through the Internet. But it is here between and among these distributed relations that we can identify a space of possibility—a cyberspace perhaps—that is being brought into being by the acts of myriad subjects.
The problem is that popular critics have become too concerned about the Internet creating obedient subjects to power rather than understanding that it is also creating submissive subjects of power who are potentially and demonstrably capable of subversion. I believe that addressing the question I posed at the beginning requires revisiting the question of the (political) subject. By reading Michel Foucault, Etienne Balibar conceived of the citizen as not merely a subject to power or subject of power but as embodying both. Balibar argued that being a subject to power involves domination by and obedience to a sovereign whereas being a subject of power involves being an agent of power even if this requires participating in one’s own submission. However, it is this participation that opens up the possibility of subversion and this is what distinguishes the citizen from the subject: she is a composite subject of obedience, submission, and subversion where all three are always-present dynamic potentialities.
democratization of hacking itself. This claim, however, threatens to unrealistically situate hackerspaces as paragons of learning and overly central to hacker culture at large, and democracy as a panacea. As discussed, GeekSpace was not without exclusion that operated in spite of its official ideology. Further, GeekSpace was constantly being re-built around individual conflicts, organizational collaborations, and cultural shifts. Returning to revisit the question of collectivity itself, the emphasis of the collective is on maximizing perceptions of individual agency through material and social encounters. This harkens back to Thomas' (2011) observation that "collectives provide tools for the unique and individual expression of identity within the collective itself'' (p. 2) and is why "community," which works quite oppositely, is likely the wrong form of social structure at work. HMSs provide a context for a negotiated sociality -sometimes warm conversations, frequently simply co-working. This provides a physical example of Turkle's (1985) observation that, online, "hacker culture is a culture of loners who are never alone" (p. 196). The failure of the first incarnation of GeekSpace was, in the eyes of members, an abundance of socialization.
Esta preferencia por la soledad también se ha visto en HackBo, así como la tensión entre lo individual y lo colectivo. Los proyectos hacen que el hackerspace funcione, pero no está claro como lo proyectan más allá de su estado actual, particularmente en lo que se refiere a ayudar a su sostenibilidad en el tiempo.
La existencia de un hackerspace no democratiza la noción de hacking, a pesar de hacerla cotidiana. La democracia, de hecho no es cotidiana, si se piensa que cristaliza sólo cada 4 años con las votaciones y de resto consiste en la queja generalizada sobre lo que hacen los gobernantes, sin vigilancia, ni control por parte de los ciudadanos. Nuevas formas de ciudadanía podrían ser articuladas en espacios como estos, desde el cotidiano.
The discussion of the rich social life of data behind the scenes stimulated a discussion for a spin-off project on aggregating geographic data about environmental issues in city. The apparently rote task of transcribing the presence of open data was an inroad to broader questions about how data was constructed behind the scenes and ways residents might add to it.
Esta idea de juntar la discusión a la acción, si bien está mediada por el código, es permanente en el Data Week.
Yet, the natural equating of “openness” or government transparency (Hood and Heald, 2006) with accountability increasingly became dubious (Tkacz, 2012). The move to “open data” was often an imperative that didn’t make clear where the levers were for social change that benefited citizens (Lessig, 2009). Still, I argue that civic hackers are often uniquely positioned to act on issues of public concern; they are in touch with local communities, with technical skills and, in many cases, institutional and legal literacies. I conclude by connecting the open data movement with a specific set of political tactics—requesting, digesting, contributing, modeling, and contesting data.
Transparencia y reponsabilidad no son lo mismo y no hay vínculos entre lo uno y lo otro directos. Los ofrecimiento gubernamentales de datos son sobre "emprendimiento" y no sobre reponsabilidad y trazabilidad.
Sin embargo, los saberes locales que ponen datos como una forma de acción política ciudadana, que incluye la contestación han sido evidenciados en HackBo, con el Data Week y las Data Rodas.
In each case data was framed as repressive of notions of civil society or enforcing an impoverished or constrictive notion of citizenship. The perspectives of Tufekci and Cheney-Lippold provide valuable insight into how algorithms and data are powerful shapers of modern life. Yet, they leave little room for a different form of algorithmic citizenship that might emerge where indi-viduals desire to reform technology and data-driven processes. As Couldry and Powell (2014) note, models of algorithmic power (Beer, 2009; Lash, 2007) tend to downplay questions of individual agency. They suggest a need to “highlight not just the risks of creating and sharing data, but the opportunities as well” (p. 5). We should be attentive to moments where meaningful change can occur, even if those changes are fraught with forces of neoliberalism and tinged with technocracy.
I conclude civic hackers are utopian realists involved in the crafting of algorithmic power and discussing ethics of technology design.
In the process, civic hackers transgress established boundaries of political participation.
Successive waves of activists saw the Internet as a tool for transparency. The framing of openness shifted in meaning from information to data, weakening of mechanisms for accountability even as it opened up new forms of political participation. Drawing on a year of interviews and participant observation, I suggest civic data hacking can be framed as a form of data activism and advocacy: requesting, digesting, contributing to, modeling, and contesting data