Despitetheirdifferences,theydogenerallyshareanimaginaryofcitizensubjectsasalreadyformedassubjectsofsubmission,wheretheirparticipationisamatterofaccess,skills,andusage.Itisanimaginaryofacitizenasasubjectwhoisoftensubmissive(ifnotobedient)andisactiveonlyinwaysrecognizedbygovernmentpoliciesandprogrammes.Alleffortsareaimedatdiscipliningsubjectsalongdigitalinclusionscalesthroughactionsthatinvolveaccess,skills,motivation,andtrust.Itisthroughrepetitionthattheseactionsbecomeembodiedandthroughwhichcitizensubjectsbecomegovernable.Digitalinclusionthusplacesdemandsonthecitizensubjecttouptaketheseactions,tobeskilledandtooled,andtolearnandbecomeknowledgeableandcompetentinlookingafterherselfandgoverninghersocialneeds

The baroque succeeded because it expressed something all Latin American people (Indians, Africans, mestizos, and even sons and daughters of Spaniards born on the con-tinent) had in common: the rejection of the domineering and distant center. Carpentier (1995) explains that to understand “Why is Latin America the chosen territory of the baroque?” we must look at the people and processes that allowed them to finally own the continent: “Because all symbiosis, all mestisaje engenders the baroque. The American baroque develops [...] with the self-awareness of the American man [...] the awareness of being Other, of being new, of being symbiotic, of being a criollo” (p

Crowdsourcing is often used as a metaphor for open data initiatives with emergent and vaguely defined goals of collaboration rather than specific ones (Brabham, 2013). Open data came increasinly referred to an ecosystem of production rather than accountability. In The New Ambiguity of Open Government, Harlan Yu and David Robinson (2012) note that open data signals a movement toward “politically neutral public sector disclosures that are easy to reuse, even if they have nothing to do with public accountability” (p. 178).

The emphasis on innovation is also vis-ible in Tim O’Reilly’s (2010) influential notion of “government as platform,” which positioned systems of governance as being similar to technical systems, subject to con-stant observation and tweaking to improve inefficiencies. He applied a biological model to government, where “information produced by and on behalf of citizens is the lifeblood of the economy and the nation” (O’Reilly, 2010: 14).

The computational shift of open government data refers to the move from governments fulfilling information requests to automatically releasing data to fulfill a range of more speculative uses. While promises about the Internet (Morozov, 2013b) encouraged this move, so too did notions of open government from previous decades. For example, David Osborne’s notion of “reinventing government” involved hallmarks familiar to open data initiatives: “catalytic” public–private relationships, connecting with communi-ties, and decentralized collaboration (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)

On the level of municipal governments in particular, the movement from information to data focused on new uses that emphasized collaboration and utility over accountability (Yu and Robinson, 2012), signaling what I term the computational shift of openness.