Las infraestructuras de información de derechos

Para esta resistencia, la infraestructura es un asunto central. Estoes, la pregunta por qué datos y de quiénes, se están utilizando en lastecnologías digitales. El lugar donde se alojan esos datos importa,como importa dónde está ese lugar, a quién pertenece, quiénestienen acceso y bajo qué condiciones. Además, cómo se mantienepermanentemente andando el sistema de captura y tráfico de datos

La naturaleza física y la tecnología disponible determinan laslimitaciones y posibilidades de un bien común particular. Estas caracterís-ticas abarcan elementos tales como el tamaño, la situación, las fronteras, lacapacidad y la abundancia del recurso. La tecnología determina la capaci-dad de extraer o apropiarse de las unidades del recurso

Of course, what is felt as a disruption changes depending on the social and political position occupied by a given person. Infrastructure does not work equally well for each of us. Think of Robert Moses and his transformation of New York City through his network of expressways.

Las rupturas son momentos en los que se interrumpe el modo habitual de ser-en-el-mundo; cuando ocurre una descomposición de este tipo nuestras prácticas consuetudinarias y el papel de nuestras herramientas en su mantenimiento quedan expuestas y aparecen nuevas soluciones de diseño;

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.

actors increasingly invest human, technological and financial resources in ‘“being the media” instead of hating it’ (Cammaerts 2012: 125). The CCC is no exception in this regard. over the past two decades, Club members have initiated a reg-ular radio show (Chaosradio), podcasts (e.g. CRE and Alternativlos), accounts on both popular and alternative online platforms such as Twitter, Quitter and personal blogs, to name some of the more promi-nent examples. Instead of abandoning outward oriented channels such as the Chaosradio show or the Datenschleuder magazine, the Club inte-grates its ‘trans-media’ (Costanza-Chock 2014) efforts into a ‘media manifold’ (Couldry 2012), where one communicative practice does not necessarily substitute for the other, but plays a part in the Club’s overall media ensemble.

In other words, with the increasing relevance of practices related to media technologies and infra-structures for social arrangements in general, and for political engage-ments in particular, media technologies and infrastructures increasingly become sites of political struggle in their own right (Kubitschko 2017). It is in this context that scholarly interest in ‘hacker cultures’—owing to the diversity of hacker collectives the plural is essential—has grown considerably in the past decade. While governmental institutions and mainstream media often use ‘hacking’ as an umbrella term for com-puter-related crime, these depictions are contrasted with insightful research that highlights hackers’ interaction with contemporary political landscapes.

concrete entities such as civil society organizations and on the role media technologies and infrastructures play in political engagements other than protest and mobilization (see Karpf 2012). Recent studies on hackers and hacking—understood as one particular set of contemporary political engagement—are no exception in this regard, as they tend to focus on contentious and globally networked forms of activism (Coleman 2014)

differentplatformsproducedifferentsociotechnicalarrangements—rules,norms,procedures,protocols,code,andalgorithms—inordertocreateaneffectivepresentationfortheirusers.Thesearrangements,orwhatwecallconventions,accomplishnotonlyasenseoffairnessbutalsostronghierarchiesthroughwhichnewsisproduced.[19]Thereisnoreasontobelievethattheseplatformsfeatureflathierarchiesorsmoothspacesofdialogue;rather,theyarehierarchicalandstriated.Theissuesofstatusandgatekeepingareasprominentintheseplatformsastheyareelsewhere.

‘takethecurrenttechnologicallandscapeasgiven.’[75]Instead,shecallsformechanismsthatpreserve‘roomfortheactsoftacticalevasionandsituatedcreativity’thatallowcitizensubjectsto‘tinker,repurpose,andadapt’andpush‘againstthosestructures,sometimesconformingtothemandsometimesfindingwaystoworkaroundthem.’[76]CitingJonathanZittrain,Cohennoteshisprincipleofthe‘generativity’oftechnologies,whichreferstothecapacityofatechnologytoallowitsuserstotinker,revise,andmakenewthingsthatwereneveranticipatedbytheirdesigners

Whiletherecertainlyarebigdifferencesintherelationsofpowerbetweencitizensubjectsandplatformowners,actionscananddoexceedtheaffordancesoftheirconventions.Itisinrelationtothenormalizingtendenciesofcyberspace—fromthosethatformattheactionsthatmakeupparticipating,connecting,andsharingtothoseoffilteringandtracking—thattensionsariseandcitizensubjectsengageintheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion.

inHabboHotelcontrolismodulatedwherenewactionsareconstantlybeingincorporated,aninventivepowerthatisworkingbyinclusion,asFoucaultillustrated,and‘whoseeffectwillbegreaterthanthesumofitscomponentparts’,asDeleuzeargued.

Ratherthanaself-regulatingcommunityaspromotedbytheowners,theresearchersconcludethatthesiteadvancesanimaginaryofthe‘modelcitizen’builtonexpectationsthatsubjectsinternalizerulesbyengaginginself-surveillanceandself-policing,andwhentheseself-regulatorymechanismsfail,subjectsaredisciplinedbymoderators(e.g.,sanctioned,expelled,orbanned)

Thatis,ratherthanasimplequestionofchoiceorexchangeeconomy,citizensubjectsarecaughtbetweenthedemandstoparticipateandconnect—andallthereasonsandvaluestheyattachtothis—andtheinterests,imperatives,andtrade-offsconfiguredbyplatformowners.Butitwouldbewrongtoreducethistomerelytheinterestofplatformowners,whichareonlyoneelementinthemake-upofconventionssuchasbrowsing.Theconventionsofsocialnetworkinginevitablyembodythesocialandculturalnorms,rules,andcustomsofwhichcitizensubjectsareapartandtakepart

Cohenreferstoblockingas‘architecturesofcontrol’and‘regimesofauthorization’thatareauthoritarianinthegenericsensethattheyfavourcompliantobediencetoauthority.[11]Ratherthanexperiencingrules—whichneednotbeexplainedordisclosed—shearguesthatusersexperiencetheireffects,whichconsistofpossibilitiesforactionthatnetworkscreate.Sowhileconcernsaboutthesurveillanceandcollectionofdigitaltracesaremostcontroversial(discussedbelow),thetransparencyofnetworkprocessesandhowaccesstoknowledgeisbeingfilteredarelessvisibleandcontrollable.Filteringalsooccursthroughtheauthorizationsattachedtocontentanddevices

thechangethatsocialmediahasintroducedfromcommunity-oriented‘connectedness’toplatform-andowner-configured‘connectivity.’[41]WiththeintroductionofWeb2.0,shearguesthatconnectivitycaptureshowsocialityhasbecometechnologicallymediatedthroughcommercialplatformsthatorganizeandmanageinteraction.

Forexample,whatresourcesofcyberspacedodigitallyequippedsubjectshavetheauthorizationtoaccessasaresultoftheworkingsofsearchalgorithmsandfiltersortheprotocolsthatgovernandnormalizetheretention,storage,sharing,anddiscoverabilityofinformation?[36]Iflegalityandimaginaryconfigurethecitizenasasubjectofpowerandplacedemandsonhertoparticipatedigitally(submission),whatwefindinterestinghereandinrelationtohowwehaveunderstoodbeingdigitalcitizensistheperformativityofparticipatingthatprovidesaglimpseofthecitizenasalsoapotentialsubjectofsubversion.How,forexample,doesparticipatinggiverisetosubversiveactions,suchasthoseofcriticalcitizenscience?[37]Or,asMatthewFullerandAndrewGoffeyputit,howdoinjunctionssuchasGoogle’s‘Don’tbeevil’maximbeliethepropensitiesthatareactivatedbyrelativelyunstablesociotechnicalarrangementsthataregenerativeof‘unintendedorsecondaryeffects’?

ForGalloway,‘now,protocolsreferspecificallytostandardsgoverningtheimplementationofspecifictechnologies.Liketheirdiplomaticpredecessors,computerprotocolsestablishtheessentialpointsnecessarytoenactanagreed-uponstandardofaction.’

Tounderstandcitizensubjectswhomakerightsclaimsbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,wearemovingfromthefirstpersontothesecondandthethird,fromtheindividualtothecollective.Weneedtoconsidertwoadditionalforcesthatmakeactspossible.Thetwoforcesaretheforceofthelawandtheforceoftheimaginary.

MarkPoster,forexample,arguesthattheseinvolvementsaregivingrisetonewpoliticalmovementsincyberspacewhosepoliticalsubjectsarenotcitizens,understoodasmembersofnation-states,butinsteadnetizens.[34]Byusingtheterm‘digitalcitizenship’asaheuristicconcept,NickCouldryandhiscolleaguesalsoillustratehowdigitalinfrastructuresunderstoodassocialrelationsandpracticesarecontributingtotheemergenceofaciviccultureasaconditionofcitizenship

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.

Altering the infrastructure for governance marks CfA as different from other progressive organizations focused on, for example, electoral politics or youth mobilization. Participation entails personalized involvement where individuals create or alter digital infrastructures to support community need

Members of HMSs, driven by hacker and maker culture, infrastructure their own space and populate it with tools, effectively de-virtualizing materialities. Buildings and tools in HMSs are treated very much as code: malleable, changeable, and durable.

At least since Doug Engelbart’s “mother of all demos” the introduction of new products has been accompanied by showmanship. Demonstrations are theater where possible uses for technology are presented (Smith, 2009). Hackathons have been argued to be the “front stage” for data and can be contrasted with the murky “back stage” of data production, munging, and interpretation (Gregg, 2014b). The difference with Balsamo might be that she does not put performance in scare quotes.

Members strived to make the invisible, sinewy dependences in the space visible. Despite its utility, the set of target boards was eventually left behind a storage bin.