Johanna Hedva: I think now we’ll open it up for ques­tions, but I just want to say that before start­ed the pan­el I had this gen­er­al ques­tion that I want­ed to ask every­body, which was, So what are we going to do?” But I think that I want to address that to this room, because you all here are the ones that are going to help us do that. You’re the mak­ers and the thinkers and the pro­duc­ers and the con­sumers that I think have a lot of pow­er in how these ques­tions get answered. So with that I’d like to open it up, and we have a micro­phone that needs to be passed around, so wait for it.

Audience 1: I just want­ed to get your thoughts on the shift to mobile plat­forms, because as a design solu­tion it kind of has caused this shift away from what Safiya men­tioned ear­li­er, like this…people grew who up with the Internet had the abil­i­ty to sort of access the backdoor…what An men­tioned, like access­ing the code. But now with the shift to mobile plat­forms, a lot of that is more opaque. And then places like in less-developed nations where the mobile plat­form is the less expen­sive option to access the Web, it cre­ates this sort of inac­ces­si­bil­i­ty of the code or the back­door has been real­ly impor­tant to this…fighting the Web, sort of, like for hack­ing and stuff like that. So I just want­ed to get your thoughts on that shift.

Safiya Noble: Yeah, you’re nail­ing it in that the hard­ware is a con­straint. It’s anoth­er one of the con­straints. So often, I talk about if I col­lect­ed search­es and the dis­play was the size of the Empire State Building, there’d be a lot more to talk about, a lot more avail­able. And con­verse­ly, when you do the search on a mobile phone, now you’re get­ting a third or less. (I got the big phone, you know what I’m say­ing, but if you’ve got a lit­tle one…because I can’t read, I’m blind.) So this is a con­straint, and I don’t think that it’s these kinds of con­ver­sa­tions, I mean… I feel like I could make a pret­ty good bet that these kinds of con­ver­sa­tions are not going down in hard­ware man­u­fac­tur­ing design, where we go, Hey, what would hap­pen if peo­ple only got the first five hits, or they couldn’t edit code from their mobile device?” In fact, we talk about these in a schol­ar­ly way as dig­i­tal enclo­sures.” And the nor­mal­iza­tion of these dig­i­tal enclo­sures, mobile being a real­ly impor­tant one, is some­thing that is very dif­fi­cult for us to inter­vene upon. We have more black-boxing, so to speak, of the tech­nol­o­gy than ever. And it is hard­er to hack, and even the idea of hack­ing it over the course of twenty-five years has become more pejo­ra­tive in kind of a legal­is­tic way. Certainly crim­i­nal­ized in many ways.

So you’re nail­ing the right ques­tions, and I think we have to fig­ure it out. Maybe that means you’ll help us, lead us to these oth­er alter­nate plat­forms where we can try to do some­thing dif­fer­ent. And peo­ple are try­ing to inter­vene with dif­fer­ent kinds of mobile tech­nolo­gies. You might’ve seen that block phone that’s all com­po­nents, where instead of throw­ing the whole phone out when one thing fails, you just take out the com­po­nent part. So it’s like a sus­tain­abil­i­ty… Well, it didn’t used to be a Google project. I guess they took it over because like two years ago it wasn’t. But they buy every­thing. So any­thing good, you guys are going to be mil­lion­aires when you come up with these good ideas. Is that the inter­ven­tion? I don’t know. We’ll have to fig­ure out at a cer­tain point, will Google get bro­ken up like AT&T was? I don’t know. Do you know what I’m say­ing? But I think it’s an impor­tant ques­tion. It’s more con­strain­ing, prob­a­bly, than many oth­er devices we’re deal­ing with.

Marika Cifor: And if we think about ideas of a dig­i­tal divide, if that’s a use­ful frame­work to even use, is hav­ing access to the Internet on a mobile phone the same as hav­ing access via lap­top? Or even if you think more with­in the realm of com­put­er access to the Internet, is hav­ing broad­band access at home the same, or as hav­ing it at your school the same as hav­ing actu­al empow­ered Internet access in a kind of com­plete way?

Noble: Yeah, this is about con­sump­tion. Being an audi­ence, a 247 always-on con­sump­tive audi­ence. It’s not real­ly for pro­duc­ing in the same way, oth­er­wise every­body would be try­ing to design on this, and they’re not.

Audience 2: This is for Professor Noble, or it’s about some­thing Professor Noble said but it’s open to the pan­el. About the imple­men­ta­tion of how we reg­u­late a search engine like Google or any oth­er enti­ty online that’s respon­si­ble for dis­sem­i­nat­ing infor­ma­tion at request. The Forbes arti­cle seemed to think that there’s def­i­nite­ly a legal and maybe a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty of doing that, and how do you go about that when respons­es that peo­ple could prob­a­bly get from Google are that our moti­va­tors are not only prof­it but usabil­i­ty,” and they’ll argue it from a very tech­ni­cal side of the equa­tion. And also, specif­i­cal­ly with Google, as I think every­one can agree it’s a major one to tar­get, that com­pa­ny in par­tic­u­lar at their out­set (you’re prob­a­bly aware of it) their main phi­los­o­phy was lit­er­al­ly the phrase Don’t be evil” when they found­ed Google.

Hedva: It’s still the WiFi pass­word on their shut­tles.

Audience 2: That’s…amazing.

Hedva: I was just there.

Audience 2: So, how do you imple­ment that kind of change or con­vince leg­is­la­tors of that kind of reg­u­la­tion when leg­is­la­tors are prob­a­bly going to see things from that side, at least now in the devel­op­ment of these ideas? And how do you actu­al­ly not just con­vince peo­ple, but are there oth­er ways of get­ting it reg­u­lat­ed? And can you do it non-cooperatively? Are there ways to get the same effects with­out actu­al­ly get­ting Google to change their algo­rithms or their poli­cies?

Noble: It’s an excel­lent ques­tion. So, when the Federal Trade Commission start­ed inves­ti­gat­ing Google a few years ago, about four years ago or so, into its monop­oly prac­tices, ulti­mate­ly the FTC decid­ed that Google was not a monop­oly and had a right to per­form its busi­ness duties any way it felt nec­es­sary. So part of what we’re deal­ing with is, as you all know, of course you can’t leave design school with­out know­ing what neolib­er­al­ism is. So, in the neolib­er­al kind of eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy envi­ron­ment, where in the United States since the 1980s we’ve real­ly stepped up our game around pri­va­ti­za­tion and cor­po­rate con­trol of many aspects of what we pre­vi­ous­ly might’ve thought of as a pub­lic domain or pub­lic insti­tu­tions that might pro­vide a resource…now we’re in an era where it seems whol­ly log­i­cal to most peo­ple that cor­po­ra­tions would pro­vide those resources to us.

So this is one of the rea­sons why peo­ple report high degree of con­fi­dence in Google or in search engines, for exam­ple. Because it seems nor­mal to have a pri­vate com­pa­ny or even a publicly-traded com­pa­ny do that rather than say, the library. And so in a total divest­ment from pub­lic libraries or pub­lic insti­tu­tions that could’ve built these tech­nolo­gies too, but are not resourced at the lev­el. The gov­ern­ment also pro­vid­ed a lot of gov­ern­ment con­tracts to Google, but not to oth­er pub­lic insti­tu­tions to do some of the work that it’s done. So Google’s mas­sive­ly fund­ed by the US gov­ern­ment.

So part of this is the envi­ron­ment, the neolib­er­al eco­nom­ic envi­ron­ment that we’re oper­at­ing in. Now, I would be on the side of giv­ing tes­ti­mo­ny about reg­u­la­tion if invit­ed to. And I think we’re see­ing in the EU, some real­ly hard crack­downs on the role of Google as a com­mer­cial, pri­vate com­pa­ny so to speak, work­ing sole­ly in its own prof­it motive par­a­digm with a dif­fer­ent set of end goals than maybe pub­lic insti­tu­tions would pro­vide.

In the US it’s very dif­fi­cult because we have very strong dis­cours­es, now more than ever, about dis­trust­ing the state, or dis­trust­ing gov­ern­ment. In Europe, peo­ple have a dif­fer­ent sen­si­bil­i­ty in many dif­fer­ent coun­tries about the role of the state. So this is part of why the EU is actu­al­ly impos­ing a lot of sanc­tions on Google around their non-competitive or anti-competitive prac­tices, and block­ing out oth­er coun­tries, and their straight up monop­oly prac­tices. They’re issu­ing a lot of push­back.

And researchers are think­ing about alter­na­tives, and they’re very well orga­nized, dif­fer­ent­ly than we’re orga­nized here. So I think that we might get some relief, so to speak, or some mod­els that come out of the EU that might help us shift the dis­course here in the US.

But I have to say that at the same time, UCLA just out­sourced its email to GMail. So, what? I mean, it’s like you can’t win. We have these pub­lic insti­tu­tions all over the coun­try that are just out­sourc­ing to these tech com­pa­nies and oth­er kinds of com­pa­nies, and divest­ing the pub­lic dol­lars from these kinds of projects.

So it’s real dif­fi­cult but I think it’s worth fight­ing for, cer­tain­ly. Because we’re start­ing to see some of the prob­lem­at­ics of the incred­i­ble sur­veil­lance that’s hap­pen­ing, the loss of con­trol over our dig­i­tal iden­ti­ties. If you think you have con­trol over it, you don’t. The doc­u­ment­ing of your every utter­ance. Once it goes on the Web, I tell peo­ple, it’s writ­ten in pen. Maybe it’s tat­tooed, I don’t know. It’s real­ly hard to get off.

So all the impli­ca­tions of what it means to have all of our lives and all of our infor­ma­tion… Jean-François Blanchette talks about the social val­ue of for­get­ful­ness, of for­get­ting. We’re los­ing our abil­i­ty to for­get the things that should be for­got­ten, also. Wait until you try to run for Senate or Congress, some of you in this room, and some pic­tures or text roll up. I know, peo­ple are like, Don’t bring it up.” So, I think we have yet to see, and maybe it will come about that when these real­ly neg­a­tive, pro­found­ly neg­a­tive con­se­quences of what it means for these com­pa­nies to con­trol every­thing about what we say and what we do— I mean, even this talk is online right now, prob­a­bly… Then, maybe we’ll push back. It’s going to take a lot more than just reg­u­la­tion, it’ll take a cul­ture shift, too.

Audience 3: This kind of off pig­gy­backs off of what we’ve been dis­cussing. We’ve been talk­ing about the cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion of online space, but also online activism at the same time. So I guess my ques­tion is what is the dan­gers of activism hap­pen­ing with­in a cor­po­rate space? And then also think­ing about, Tumblr was specif­i­cal­ly men­tioned, and in my opin­ion Tumblr is kind of…different from online spaces, and I would just like to talk about why is that.

Hedva: I love Tumblr. I’m not on any social media site except for Tumblr, and it’s great. I feel like I’ve learned more from being on social jus­tice blogs on Tumblr, Black Tumblr dur­ing Blackout Day, Trans Day of Visibility, than my entire crit­i­cal the­o­ry degree in grad­u­ate school at CalArts, like for real. And I think one of the things about Tumblr that…it’s maybe like a step away from Facebook in that you can be com­plete­ly anony­mous on there. You don’t have to reveal any of your own infor­ma­tion. And the infor­ma­tion that you choose to reveal is often like, Yeah, I’m like a 15 year-old gen­derqueer per­son liv­ing in the mid­dle of nowhere and I can change the CSS and HTML on my Tumblr.” And I think that there’s some­thing about it that’s a lit­tle MySpace-y in that way. I mean, obvi­ous­ly Tumblr is not a Utopia. There are plen­ty of prob­lems on Tumblr. But I think that there’s some­thing about it that…

This is also a gen­er­al ques­tion that I want­ed to ask about anonymi­ty and Anonymous and the hack­tivist work of Anonymous. I won­der if anonymi­ty on the Internet is also in ser­vice to some kind of polit­i­cal action that can be good. Like I won­der if the rea­son Tumblr feels dif­fer­ent is because you can choose—like, you don’t have to use your real name. So on Facebook this is a prob­lem if you want to use a dif­fer­ent name than your giv­en name. Say you’re a trans per­son who doesn’t want to use your giv­en name. And Facebook has this pol­i­cy of ask­ing you, or demand­ing, Is this your real name?”

So I won­der about that lev­el of anonymi­ty and how that works. What do y’all think about Anonymous?

An Xiao Mina: I think I can speak gen­er­al­ly to anonymi­ty. I think it’s both incred­i­bly pow­er­ful and incred­i­bly dan­ger­ous at the same time, in ways that I’m still grap­pling with. A friend of mine who’s a researcher, her name’s Tricia Wang, she put forth this idea specif­i­cal­ly around Tumblr but I guess any sort of social net­work that allows for flex­i­ble per­for­mance of iden­ti­ty, it’s the abil­i­ty to explore dif­fer­ent iden­ti­ties and to ben­e­fit from anonymi­ty and not have to be locked into who you are. And she used this phrase elas­tic self,” which I just loved.

In cities, tra­di­tion­al­ly, the abil­i­ty to go to a gay bar or to these kind of third spaces where you could explore a dif­fer­ent sort of iden­ti­ty or dif­fer­ent sort of self with what you would hope is some lev­el of anonymi­ty away from the small­er vil­lages or towns you might come from, we can analo­gize that with some of these flex­i­ble spaces that allow for, if not anonymi­ty then at least pseu­donymi­ty, or some sort or a flex­i­ble iden­ti­ty. I’m not sure that anonymi­ty on the Internet is tru­ly pos­si­ble, giv­en the amount of data that’s col­lect­ed about how we’re using the Web. That could be debat­ed. But the flex­i­ble iden­ti­ty seems real­ly impor­tant.

But at the same time, and we saw this with the Dylan Roof exam­ple, it’s also a way to per­form dan­ger­ous iden­ti­ties as well, and dis­cov­er dif­fer­ent sides of your­self that you may not have explored and that are actu­al­ly harm­ful to soci­ety. So it’s an issue I’m still grap­pling with, and I think there are these incred­i­ble ben­e­fits for mar­gin­al­ized com­mu­ni­ties, but mar­gin­al view­points can also be…you know, misog­y­ny might be con­sid­ered a mar­gin­al­ized view­point in terms of, the abil­i­ty to express direct misog­y­ny in pub­lic dis­course in the US is quite lim­it­ed. And yet on the Internet what we see is extreme­ly direct misog­y­ny. So that abil­i­ty to be pseu­do­ny­mous or anony­mous can pro­mote both harm­ful and help­ful atti­tudes. So I think it’s a quite dif­fi­cult ques­tion.

Cifor: I think there’s a lot of things to speak to in both of your ques­tions. But think­ing about activism for a sec­ond (and we can think of Anonymous as kind of a spe­cif­ic instance of dig­i­tal activism and its poten­tial), actu­al­ly this is one of the things we were talk­ing about in my class yes­ter­day. The kind of poten­tial for activism and what can be done well in terms of online activism. Is it the same val­u­a­tion to Like some­thing, to Like a social jus­tice cause on Facebook, as it is to go to a march or to engage in some kind of more tra­di­tion­al form of protest? And I’m actu­al­ly real­ly intrigued by the fact that most of my stu­dents did not see… They see dig­i­tal tools as enabling tra­di­tion­al activism, but that the actu­al pure­ly dig­i­tal activism doesn’t actually…they don’t see it as hav­ing much pow­er for change, which was inter­est­ing to me. And that they were very drawn, there were things they still want­ed even from activist move­ments that had come in part out of dig­i­tal spaces— So, think­ing about Black Lives Matter and oth­er kinds of hash­tag activism,” that they still are not con­vinced that it can make pos­i­tive social change with­out hav­ing a tra­di­tion­al hier­ar­chy and plat­form of demands. They were par­tic­u­lar­ly crit­i­cal… Most of them were on board with Black Lives Matter’s mes­sage, but don’t think it [can] actu­al­ly pro­voke real change with­out a more tra­di­tion­al activist plat­form where say, they’re going to take a legal kind of approach to end­ing racism in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem and things.

So I think there’s lots of inter­est­ing ques­tions to ask about what dig­i­tal spaces can do well and what they don’t do well, and some of that is relat­ed to issues that’ve already come up around lan­guage. There’s been Ramesh Srinivasan, who’s in our depart­ment, writes a lot about the Arab Spring and the use of Twitter there, and where those peo­ple who were using Twitter actu­al­ly are and what was actu­al­ly done in dig­i­tal spaces ver­sus in phys­i­cal spaces as well. So there’s lots of inter­est­ing ques­tions to ask there.

And speak­ing of misog­y­ny in online spaces, Lindy West has a real­ly great sto­ry about one of her misog­y­nist Internet trolls actu­al­ly kind of com­ing out to her as who he actu­al­ly is and them hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion, which is real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing if you’re inter­est­ed in that as well.

Noble: Yeah. If you look back, pre-digital, to the types of sur­veil­lance that activists espe­cial­ly in the US, on the Left in par­tic­u­lar, have been under, I think the Internet exac­er­bates that lev­el of sur­veil­lance, the end. It’s just what hap­pens. And so it’s hard for me to get on board with think­ing that the Internet is some type of lib­er­a­to­ry space because it actu­al­ly height­ens— I mean now, every sin­gle per­son who’s ever tweet­ed on any cause is iden­ti­fi­able. And trust, for those of us who’ve been trolled on the Internet, we know what the real threat of that kind of trolling is, also.

I think Anonymous, that’s a com­pli­cat­ed orga­ni­za­tion” in that, ear­ly days of Anonymous were all about the kind of bro cul­ture, sex­ism and trolling and racism, and now they’re doing Operation KKK or Operation Hoods Off, and I’m like, What? When did that hap­pen?” So Anonymous itself is not real­ly a mono­lith­ic thing. It’s a lot of dif­fer­ent peo­ple with a lot of dif­fer­ent agen­das that’re hap­pen­ing there. And I think one oth­er thing that’s inter­est­ing about what Anonymous has been doing, I’ve been watch­ing them fierce­ly since the Parish bomb­ing on Twitter, is that they’re doing a lot to talk about like, they’re tak­ing down ISIS, pro-ISIS Twitter accounts. They’re claim­ing to have tak­en down more than 6,000 Twitter accounts and ISIS sym­pa­thiz­er accounts in the last week. And they’re issu­ing guides on how to do hack­tivism for every­day peo­ple, which is also inter­est­ing.

But here’s the thing. Not every­body knows how to open up an IRC chan­nel and how to real­ly get Anonymous. That’s dif­fi­cult. That’s not an every­day user kind of expe­ri­ence. And also, peo­ple who do that lev­el of real­ly try­ing to con­ceal their iden­ti­ty or where they’re search­ing, if they’re using Tor and these kinds of things, those are actu­al­ly being crim­i­nal­ized. So it’s like, can you do that? To me, peo­ple of col­or, peo­ple who are on the mar­gin, using those kinds of tech­nolo­gies are more at risk because of the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of that kind of engage­ment.

So I guess I feel like it’s lay­ered. I don’t dis­agree with any­thing that’s been said here about the iden­ti­ty work that we can do, and mak­ing our­selves vis­i­ble, and the edu­ca­tion we can do def­i­nite­ly is hap­pen­ing. At the same time, when we think about where the real pow­er is, how pow­er oper­ates at the lev­el of the state or oth­er types of organizations…law enforce­ment, Homeland Security, NSA…I think that we’re see­ing peo­ple lose their jobs over their polit­i­cal activism online. We’re see­ing most­ly even kind of right-wing extrem­ists in the United States, white suprema­cists, what we might call our home­land ter­ror­ists, not crim­i­nal­ized. But oth­er kinds of activists crim­i­nal­ized.

So these things are still explic­it­ly polit­i­cal around the agen­da and the ten­sions we have in the United States. If we look pre-Internet again, at projects like COINTELPRO, the coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence pro­gram of the United States gov­ern­ment (every­body go watch the COINTELPRO 101 doc­u­men­tary), these prac­tices of sur­veilling women’s orga­ni­za­tions, anti-war pro­test­ers, Puerto Rican inde­pen­dence move­ment, civ­il rights and black pow­er activists, brown pow­er activists…it’s like who’s left? I don’t know whoever’s left. I mean, what’s left is the Klan, right? Or Nazis, or that right-wing extrem­ism, that’s less sur­veilled and fac­ing far less con­se­quence.

So these things hap­pened before the Internet, and I think the Internet is actu­al­ly mak­ing peo­ple who are try­ing to do pro­gres­sive work more vis­i­ble and are poten­tial­ly fac­ing greater con­se­quence for that vis­i­bil­i­ty.

Hedva: If any­body has one last ques­tion? Short. And then we’ll wrap it up.

Audience 4: Hi. There was a brief sec­tion where you guys were talk­ing about how a lot of the infor­ma­tion, espe­cial­ly dur­ing the AIDS move­ment, was archived. In this age where there is offi­cial com­men­tary about issues, but there’s also a lot of back­hand­ed com­men­tary through the com­ments or through Twitter or things, where do those play in the ide­al archival images, or archival data, and do you think they have poten­tial­ly pow­er where they stand? Where does that fit in the idea of tech­nol­o­gy in the dig­i­tal age?

Cifor: That’s a real­ly good and inter­est­ing ques­tion. Speaking to the archiv­ing ques­tion for a sec­ond there, which is I feel my pri­ma­ry area of exper­tise. There’s lots of argu­ments about whether we will actu­al­ly… There is so much infor­ma­tion, but whether that infor­ma­tion will con­tin­ue to exist. Web sites…you stop pay­ing for your domain name, they might dis­ap­pear, right? We have the poten­tial to pre­serve more data, but we know less about pre­serv­ing this data. We know a lot about pre­serv­ing paper. We don’t know a whole lot yet about pre­serv­ing dig­i­tal mate­ri­als of all kinds. And dig­i­tal mate­ri­als of course degrade like oth­er mate­ri­als do, and they’re kind of ephemer­al and peo­ple don’t main­tain them. Or con­cep­tu­al­ize with them, nec­es­sar­i­ly in the same way. So there’s of course the ques­tion of whether we will actu­al­ly have… There’s a poten­tial for the Internet as this kind of end­less expan­sive ocean of an archive. But we may in fact have less infor­ma­tion at some point about cer­tain moments and par­tic­u­lar­ly this moment.

So that’s an inter­est­ing ques­tion. And then with the poster I showed at the end, a lot of what the artists are respond­ing to is this kind of nos­tal­gia for an ear­li­er peri­od of activism, and for a par­tic­u­lar kind of activism, and a par­tic­u­lar kind of atten­tion to AIDS, and an atten­tion to AIDS in the past as some­thing that is done. Of course AIDS is not done. And they’re cri­tiquing in par­tic­u­lar the decon­tex­tu­al­iza­tion of those images. That is some­thing that hap­pens par­tic­u­lar­ly in a dig­i­tal space. You can do a Google image search and maybe some­thing from ACT UP will pop up and you can reuse in, well…there’s copy­right issues, but you can the­o­ret­i­cal­ly use it in any way you want to.

So it’s then kind of divorced from its entire con­tex­tu­al his­to­ry. You can know lit­tle to noth­ing about the AIDS move­ment and still recre­ate those images. And I think that’s where Justin Bieber per­haps comes into that image. Does Justin Bieber know who ACT UP is or was? Does Justin Bieber have an invest­ment in AIDS activism? He’s nev­er, to my knowl­edge, said any­thing pub­licly. Or did Justin Bieber’s styl­ist just think the ACT UP logo made a cool t-shirt? We’re not sure. Maybe Justin Bieber is a secret AIDS activist, but (not to cri­tique his pol­i­tics) the poten­tial for decon­tex­tu­al­iza­tion of images is huge. So these images of AIDS pro­lif­er­ate, but the actu­al knowl­edge about AIDS does not nec­es­sar­i­ly pro­lif­er­ate, and it only is look­ing at a par­tic­u­lar kind of icon­ic moment of AIDS so it dis­tracts from hav­ing con­ver­sa­tions about AIDS now, and AIDS as glob­al pan­dem­ic, and AIDS in the United States as some­thing that of course dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly impacts women of col­or and poor peo­ple and trans peo­ple and peo­ple of col­or more broad­ly.

And part of what I think my argu­ment will be is that it won’t be doc­u­ment­ed. AIDS now will not be doc­u­ment­ed in the way that AIDS was in the 1980s and 1990s, and part of that is of course the rea­son that things get doc­u­ment­ed. Archives reflect notions of pow­er. Who has access to pow­er and who thinks they’re impor­tant and whose lives we think are impor­tant in the archival world. And what activism looks like and what dig­i­tal looks like, and there are lots of issues if we think about use of pro­pri­etary plat­forms there. It’s tech­ni­cal­ly Facebook owns every­thing you put on Facebook. So there are seri­ous con­cerns about whether you’re actu­al­ly legal­ly able to pre­serve the activism you do on Facebook, because that data doesn’t tech­ni­cal­ly belong to you, so you can­not donate that data to an archive.

Reas: Yeah. I think it’s time. Hsinyu are we doing a recep­tion in the back? So we’ll have a recep­tion upstairs, right here in the room so we can con­tin­ue some of the con­ver­sa­tions. This has been an extra­or­di­nary evening. Thank you so much for join­ing us and shar­ing these ideas, many of them hor­ri­fy­ing. But incred­i­ble to be hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion in this room, so deep­est thank you for that. Thank you, audi­ence. And then I real­ly want to espe­cial­ly thank the techn­odi­ver­si­ty team at the void­Lab. That’s Hsinyu [Lin], Peter [Lu], Sofia [Staab-Gulbenkian], and Lilyan [Kris].

Hedva: Yes, this is total­ly student-initiated, this evening. So, thank you so much. It’s real­ly amaz­ing that this is— And Echo [Theohar], way in the back. You guys are amaz­ing. Thank you for hav­ing us.

Further Reference

This Q&A session was preceded by a panel discussion period.

Biased Data: A Panel Discussion on Intersectionality and Internet Ethics at the Processing Foundation web site.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.