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.

Prescreening can also involve collecting data to identify and eliminate participants.

Makingrightsclaimsinorbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotfoundedinisolationorasifitsprangfromnowhere:citizensubjectsareoftenordinaryratherthanheroicsubjectswhohavestruggledtoarticulate,claim,andmaketheserightsthroughmultipleandoverlappinglegalorders.Thedisappearanceorabsenceofthefigureofacitizenthatwehaveinheritedandwhocanmakeclaimsto‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotsimplyapoliticsoftradition:itisalsoapoliticsofacitizentocome.

Rather,andthisisDerrida’sintervention,theactbringsthepeople,itspoliticalsubject,intobeingthroughtheact.Thepeopleadeclarationnamesdonotexist.Derridawrites,‘[People]donotexistasanentity,itdoesnotexist,beforethisdeclaration,notassuch.Ifitgivesbirthtoitself,asfreeandindependentsubject,aspossiblesigner,thiscanholdonlyintheactofthesignature.Thesignatureinventsthesigner.’

Weareconcernedthatthedividebetweentheenactmentandinscriptionofdigitalrightsremainsdangerouslyopen.Thosewhoseattempttoinscriberightsinlawworkwiththeassumptionthattheirenactmentwillfollowtheirinscription.Thosewhoseactsenactdigitalrightsworkwiththeconvictionthattheirinscriptionwillfollowtheirenactment.WithRancière,wecansaythattheirinscriptionisapreludetotheirenactmentwhiletheirenactmentinspirestheirinscription.Thosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsinsayingsomething(inscription)areonaseparatebutnecessarilyrelatedpathfromthosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsbysayingsomething(enactment).Letusconsidermorecloselymakingrightsclaimsinsayingsomethingandbysayingsomething.

Thissensibilityisalsoakeytounderstandinghowthesedeclarationsarecumulativelybringingapoliticalsubject,asyetunnamed,intobeing.

Rancièrecallsbringingthesetwoaspectsofrightstogetherasdissensus.Itisdissensusratherthanconsensusbecausepoliticsisalwaysacontestationoverwhoiscountedandwhatcounts.ForRancière,apoliticalsubjectinvolvesthecapacityforstagingsuchscenesofdissensus.Thus,‘politicalsubjectsarenotdefinitecollectivities.Theyaresurplusnames,namesthatsetoutaquestionoradisputeaboutwhoisincludedintheircount.’

Itisalsotemptingtointerpretthem

Wewanttoreadtheemergenceandtransformationsofthedigitalrightsmovementfromtheperspectiveofdigitalactsasoneofthenecessaryelementsformakingdigitalrightsclaims.Whethertheseactscumulativelyconstituteadigitalrightsmovementcomparabletoothersocialmovementswillconcernscholarsintheforeseeablefuture,andwecannotaddressthatquestionhere.Instead,wewanttogatherfromdisparateanddisperseddigitalactstherecognitionofadimlyemergingfigureasthesubjectofdigitalrights.Itistheemergenceofthisspecificpoliticalsubjectivityarounddigitalrightsandtheclaimsthroughwhichithasemerged—andtheopeningsandclosingsithasinstigated—thatformsthecentralquestionofthisbook.

Twodecadeslater,CAE’sviewon‘electroniccivildisobedience’seemsbothprescientandnaïve

Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.

Witnessing,hacking,andcommoningarethreedigitalactsthathavebecomepossibleoverthepastfewyearsandhavecreatedopeningsforbeingdigitalcitizensinorbymakingrightsclaims.Theresignificationofexistingortheintroductionofnewconventionsmadetheseactspossible:Bitcoin,copyleft,CreativeCommons,Digg,GitHub,GNN,GNU,WikiLeaks,andmanyothers.Nodoubtsomeoftheseconventionswillbereplacedordisplacedbyothers.Somewillbecomedefunct.Somewillperhapspersistasatestamenttothedigitalcommons.Therewillcertainlybenewconventions.Whatenduresistheperformativeforcethathasgoneintomakingtheseopeningspossible.IfweunderstandcyberspaceasaspaceofrelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,witnessing,hacking,andcommoningresignifyorinventconventionsandmakepossibletheemergenceofnewwaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspace.

Copyrightderivesitslegalforcefromlawsthatprotectexclusiverightstoandcontrolofintellectualproperty.EvenifitsoriginscanbetracedtoearlymodernEurope(sixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies),itismoderninthesensethattheformationofintellectualproperty—thatis,theconversionofcreativeproductssuchaswords,data,images,andsoundintopropertyforexchange—isaresultoftheaccumulationofcapitalinmodernsocieties.

Colemanarguesthatbymostlycircumventingcopyrightlawswiththeircommitmenttothefreecirculationofintellectualproperty,hackerscontradicttheexistingliberalconceptionofintellectualpropertyastherighttoexcludeandcontrol.Yetbyadvancingvaluesofcivillibertiesandpromotingindividualautonomyand,aboveall,acommitmenttofreespeech,hackersarethemostardentpromotersofliberalvalues.Thus,forColeman,hackersoccupybothacentralandmarginal—wemightsayaparadoxical—placewithintheliberaltradition.

Forus,probablythemostpertinentdistinctionisbetweenprogrammersandhackers.Inorbysayingsomethingincodeperformsbothillocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts.

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.

TheethicaldimensionbecomesevenclearerwhenAssangesays,‘Thosewhoarerepeatedlypassiveinthefaceofinjusticesoonfindtheircharactercorrodedintoservility.’[33]Toputitinourwords,citizensubjects,preciselybecauseoftheircapacitytojudge,arenotmerelyobedient(orservile)butalsosubversive.Thisisbecausesubmissiontoconventionsrequiresusingjudgementonthetermsofsubmission.Althoughthecitizensubjectsubmitstoconventions,becauseofthiscapacity,thecallofsubversiontoruptureaconventionalwaysretainsitsforce.Assangeclearlyappealsheretoanaspectofjournalisticethics—bearingwitness—butheresignifiesitpoliticallybyidentifyingitasacalltoact.ThedebateoverwhetherWikiLeaksisaplatformforjournalismorwhistle-blowingoverlooksthatitprimarilyenableswitnessing—thattheworldmayknow(differently).Itisoftenarguedthatsuchwhistle-blowingexposesclassifiedsecretsandendangerstheintelligenceworkofthestate.Butwhatwhistle-blowingexposesisthattherearethosewhofinditintolerabletowitnessabusesandmisusesofauthorityandnotsharethem.Ifbankersdeceive,soldiersmassacre,agenciessnoop,anddiplomatslie,citizenshavetherighttoknowthat.Citizenshavearighttoknowwhatstateandcorporateauthoritiesaredoingin,andoftenwith,theirname.WikiLeaksandwhistle-blowingingeneralareessentiallyclaimingthisrighttoknow.

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

Bynotonlyciting,repeating,anditeratingbutalsoresignifying,citizensubjectscan,andasweshallseeinchapter6indeeddo,breakconventionsandtakeresponsibility.Criticssuchasthosecitedaboveoftenslipintodeterministandstructuralistaccountsoftheworkingsofplatformsbyinferringthatusersaredeceivedandunwittinglysubmittotheresultsofsearchqueries,newsfeeds,ortrendsandthattheseareforces‘shaping’themandsocieties.

Thatthesedemandshaveemergedinthespanofonlyafewyearsatteststowhatwecallthe‘closings’ofcyberspace.ThesedemandsandtheirclosingsareeffectsofthewayinwhichactingthroughtheInternethasresignifiedquestionsofvelocity,extensity,anonymity,andtraceability.Velocitycallsforregularandongoingvigilanceaboutrapidlychangingtechnologies,protocols,practices,platforms,andrulesaboutbeingdigital;extensitycallsforawarenessofwhereandtowhomdigitalactionsreach;anonymitycallsforlimitingandprotectingexposureandbeingcautiousaboutthepresumedidentitiesofothers;andtraceabilitycallsformanaginghowactionsaretracked,analysed,manipulated,andsortedbyunknownothersandforunknowablepurposes.Allofthesedemandsspringnotfromparticipating,connecting,andsharingalonebuttherelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,whichismadeupofconventionsconfiguredbytheactionsofdispersedanddistributedauthorities.Itistotheseconfiguringactions,whichwecalltheclosingsofcyberspace,thatweturntointhenextchapter,withafocusonfiltering,tracking,andnormalizing.

Toputitbluntly,fromourperspective,popularcriticshavebecometooconcernedaboutcyberspacecreatingobedientsubjectstopowerratherthanunderstandingthatcyberspaceiscreatingsubmissivesubjectsofpowerwhoarepotentiallycapableofsubversion.

Howcanthecallingtoparticipatethatwehaveidentifiedproducedigitalcitizenswhoseactsexceedtheirintentions?Toputitdifferently,atensionexistsbetweenthewaysinwhichthefigureofthedigitalcitizenisconceivedinhegemonicimaginariesandlegaldiscoursesandhowsheisperformativelycomingintobeingthroughactionsthatequiphertobeacitizeninwaysthatarenotacknowledgedoralwaysintended.

Mossbergeretal.,forexample,understanddigitalcitizenshipastheabilitytofullyparticipateinsocietyonline,whichrequiresregularaccesstotheInternet,withadequatedevicesandspeeds,technologicalskillsandcompetence,andinformationliteracy.[21]Equippingthusincludesnotonlyhardware,suchasinstallingcomputersinclassroomsandlibrariesandexpandinghigh-speedbroadbandservices,butalsodevelopingskillsandcapabilitiesthroughtrainingcoursesincomputing,coding,andprogramming

ForHalfordandSavage,whetherliberatingordividing,cyberspace(orwhattheyrefertoasthe‘Web’)isalwaysconsideredasanalreadygivenspace,anditssubjectsareseparate,independent,andpreformedratherthanperformed.Ratherthanassumingthat‘pre-formedsocialgroups“use”(ordon’tuse)technologies’,theyidentifya‘morecomplexprocessofmutualinteractionandstabilisation’wheredigitaltechnologiesarenotseparatedfromsocialprocessesbutinsteadinvolvedinconstitutingsubjectsindiverseandpervasiveways.[16]Inotherwords,theyadvancethattheWebisnotindependentfromtheactionsofsubjects.

ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.

Thisindividualisautonomousnotbecauseitisseparateorindependentfromsocietybutasitsproductretainsthecapabilitytoquestionitsowninstitution.Castoriadissaysthatthisnewtypeofbeingiscapableofcallingintoquestiontheverylawsofitsexistenceandhascreatedthepossibilityofbothdeliberationandpoliticalaction.

Onthecontrary,citizensubjectsperformativelycomeintobeinginorbytheactofsayinganddoingsomething—whetherthroughwords,images,orotherthings—andthroughperformingthecontradictionsinherentinbecomingcitizens.

ThisistheprincipalreasonwhyweneedtoinvestigatenotonlythingsdoneinorbyspeakingthroughtheInternetbutalsothingssaidinorbydoingthingsthroughtheInternet.

‘Theforceoftheperformativeisthusnotinheritedfrompriorusage,butissuesforthpreciselyfromitsbreakwithanyandallpriorusage.Thatbreak,thatforceofrupture,istheforceoftheperformative,beyondallquestionoftruthormeaning.’[22]Forpoliticalsubjectivity,‘performativitycanworkinpreciselysuchcounter-hegemonicways.Thatmomentinwhichaspeechactwithoutpriorauthorizationneverthelessassumesauthorizationinthecourseofitsperformancemayanticipateandinstatealteredcontextsforitsfuturereception.’[23]Toconceiveruptureasasystemicortotalupheavalwouldbefutile.Rather,ruptureisamomentwherethefuturebreaksthroughintothepresent.[24]Itisthatmomentwhereitbecomespossibletodosomethingdifferentinorbysayingsomethingdifferent.

Moreover,ourconcernwiththeInternetisnotthespeakingsubjectassuchbuthowmakingrightsclaimsbringscitizensubjectsintobeing.Howdodigitalactsbringcitizensubjectsintobeing?DoestheInternetintroducearadicaldifferenceforunderstandingcitizensubjects?DoesthelanguageoftheInternet—code—worklikenaturallanguage?

Ifthecomputerizationofsocietyraisessuchquestions,theanalysisoftheproduction,dissemination,andlegitimationofknowledge,onwhichithasaprofoundeffect,cannotberestrictedtounderstandingcomputerizationascommunicationorcomputer-mediatedcommunication.Rather,theobjectofinvestigationoughttobelanguagegamesthatbecamepossiblethroughwhatLyotardsawasnetworkedcomputers

WhatwefindinLyotard—albeitinincipientform—isthatratherthanconceivingaseparateandindependentspace,thepointistorecognizethatpowerrelationsincontemporarysocietiesarebeingincreasinglymediatedandconstitutedthroughcomputernetworksthateventuallycametobeknownastheInternet.

TheanathemaforLessigisthelossofthisfreedomincyberspace.Inrealspace,governingpeoplerequiresinducingthemtoactincertainways,butinthelastinstance,peoplehadthechoicetoactthiswayorthatway.Bycontrast,incyberspaceconductisgovernedbycode,whichtakesawaythatchoice.Incyberspace,‘iftheregulatorwantstoinduceacertainbehavior,sheneednotthreaten,orcajole,toinspirethechange.Sheneedonlychangethecode—thesoftwarethatdefinesthetermsuponwhichtheindividualgainsaccesstothesystem,orusesassetsonthesystem.’[37]Thisisbecause‘codeisanefficientmeansofregulation.Butitsperfectionmakesitsomethingdifferent.Oneobeystheselawsascodenotbecauseoneshould;oneobeystheselawsascodebecauseonecandonothingelse.Thereisnochoiceaboutwhethertoyieldtothedemandforapassword;onecompliesifonewantstoenterthesystem.Inthewellimplementedsystem,thereisnocivildisobedience.’[38]WhatLessigsuggestsisthatcyberspaceisnotonlyseparateandindependentbutconstitutesanewmodeofpower.Youconstituteyourselfasasubjectofpowerbysubmittingtocode.

Wehaveidentifiedthisasthecontradictionbetweensubmissionandsubversionorconsentanddissent.JacquesRancièrecapturesthisasdissensus.[27]Wewillreturntodissensusinchapter7.Second,whilearticulatingaparticulardemand(forinclusion,recognition),performingcitizenshipenactsauniversalrighttoclaimrights.Thisisthecontradictionbetweentheuniversalismandparticularismofcitizenship.

Ifmakingrightsclaimsisperformative,itfollowsthattheserightsareneitherfixednorguaranteed:theyneedtoberepeatedlyperformed.Theircomingintobeingandremainingeffectiverequiresperformativity.Theperformativeforceofcitizenshipremindsusthatthefigureofthecitizenhastobebroughtintobeingrepeatedlythroughacts(repertoires,declarations,andproclamations)andconventions(rituals,customs,practices,traditions,laws,institutions,technologies,andprotocols).Withouttheperformanceofrights,thefigureofthecitizenwouldmerelyexistintheoryandwouldhavenomeaningindemocraticpolitics.

Therightsthatthecitizenholdsarenottherightsofanalready-existingsovereignsubjectbuttherightsofafigurewhosubmitstoauthorityinthenameofthoserightsandactstocallintoquestionitsterms.Thisistheinescapableandinheritedcontradictionbetweensubmissionandsubversionofthefigureofthecitizenthatcanbeexpressedinaparadoxicalphrase:submissionasfreedom.

IfwefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternet,itinvolvesinvestigatinghowpeopleuselanguagetodescribethemselvesandtheirrelationstoothersandhowlanguagesummonsthemasspeakingbeings.Toputitdifferently,itinvolvesinvestigatinghowpeopledothingswithwordsandwordswiththingstoenactthemselves.ItalsomeansaddressinghowpeopleunderstandthemselvesassubjectsofpowerwhenactingthroughtheInternet.

Givenitspervasivenessandomnipresence,avoidingorshunningcyberspaceisasdystopianasquittingsocialspace;itisalsocertainthatconductingourselvesincyberspacerequires,asmanyactivistsandscholarshavewarned,intensecriticalvigilance.Sincetherecannotbegenericoruniversalanswerstohowweconductourselves,moreorlesseveryincipientorexistingpoliticalsubjectneedstoaskinwhatwaysitisbeingcalleduponandsubjectifiedthroughcyberspace.Inotherwords,toreturnagaintotheconceptualapparatusofthisbook,thekindsofcitizensubjectscyberspacecultivatesarenothomogenousanduniversalbutfragmented,multiple,andagonistic.Atthesametime,thefigureofacitizenyettocomeisnotinevitable;whilecyberspaceisafragileandprecariousspace,italsoaffordsopenings,momentswhenthinking,speaking,andactingdifferentlybecomepossiblebychallengingandresignifyingitsconventions.Thesearethemomentsthatwehighlighttoarguethatdigitalrightsarenotonlyaprojectofinscriptionsbutalsoenactment.

digitalactsresignifyfourpoliticalquestionsabouttheInternet

Wearguethatmakingrightsclaimsinvolvesnotonlyperformativebutalsolegalandimaginaryforces.Wethenarguethatdigitalactsinvolveconventionsthatincludenotonlywordsbutalsoimagesandsoundsandvariousactionssuchasliking,coding,clicking,downloading,sorting,blocking,andquerying.

WedevelopourapproachtobeingdigitalcitizensbydrawingonMichelFoucaulttoarguethatsubjectsbecomecitizensthroughvariousprocessesofsubjectivationthatinvolverelationsbetweenbodiesandthingsthatconstitutethemassubjectsofpower.WefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternetandatthesametimebringcyberspaceintobeing.Wepositionthisunderstandingofsubjectivationagainstthatofinterpellation,whichassumesthatsubjectsarealwaysandalreadyformedandinhabitedbyexternalforces.Rather,wearguethatcitizensubjectsaresummonedandcalledupontoactthroughtheInternetand,assubjectsofpower,respondbyenactingthemselvesnotonlywithobedienceandsubmissionbutalsosubversion.

citizenshipasasiteofcontestationorsocialstruggleratherthanbundlesofgivenrightsandduties.[41]Itisanapproachthatunderstandsrightsasnotstaticoruniversalbuthistoricalandsituatedandarisingfromsocialstruggles.Thespaceofthisstruggleinvolvesthepoliticsofhowwebothshapeandareshapedbysociotechnicalarrangementsofwhichweareapart.Fromthisfollowsthatsubjectsembodyboththematerialandimmaterialaspectsofthesearrangementswheredistinctionsbetweenthetwobecomeuntenable.[42]Whowebecomeaspoliticalsubjects—orsubjectsofanykind,forthatmatter—isneithergivenordeterminedbutenactedbywhatwedoinrelationtoothersandthings.Ifso,beingdigitalandbeingcitizensaresimultaneouslytheobjectsandsubjectsofpoliticalstruggl

Butthefigureofcyberspaceisalsoabsentincitizenship

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.

Like other social spaces that sociologists study, cyberspace is not designed and arranged and then experienced by passive subjects. Like the physical spaces of cities that geographers have long studied, it is a space that is bought into being by citizen subjects who act in ways that submit to but also at the same time go beyond and transgress the conventions of the Internet. In doing so they are not simply obedient and submissive but also subversive and participate in the making of and rights claims to cyberspace through their digital acts.

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 benefit of these spaces is best summed up as flexibility. Members are supported as they join the space, become peripheral participants, and potentially, become longstanding members engaged in ongoing projects. Hacking, like art, becomes not the domain of the elite or reified objects but intimately tied with everyday experiences throughout one's life (Dewey, 1934). The pragmatic devotion of HMSs to recursive problem-solving attracts members who see HMSs bringing informal education and collaborative sociality to their city. In interviews GeekSpace members freely offered beliefs about why they saw HMSs as vital to reforming their city at large. Flexibility, exercised through the constant churn of hands-on work on projects, was coupled with optimism for making a better future. Kligler-Vilenchik et al. (2012) describe a similar desire in civically-minded youth organizations as a "wish to help" (para. 1.5), a form of engagement more familiar to volunteerism than hackers that exert their collective power through protest or software (Coleman, 2012; Sauters, 2013). Above all else, this optimism drives HMS members as they seek to reframe what hacking and making can accomplish.

Hacker and maker represented not so much discrete categories as fluid identities that emerged by on mode of work, personal history, and comfort with cultural alignment. This cozy relationship troubles easy stereotypes of hacking as related to scientific rationality and making to felt experience. For example, as Lingel and Regan (2014) observe, the experiences of software developers can be both highly rational and deeply embodied, resulting in their thinking about coding as process, embodiment, and community. The thrill or pleasure of hacking being linked simply to transgression or satisfaction of completing a difficult job seems lacking (Taylor, 1999; Turkle, 1984). From the side of craft, Daniella Rosner (2012) draws a historic connection to the humble bookbindery as a material-workspace collaboration and site of personalized routines and encounters with tools that lead to complex collaborations. These ethnographies take into account passions and relative definitions of technology that are often neglected in organizational studies. Thus, these inroads to informal learning could be mutually informed by Leonardi's (2011) notion of imbrication, where material and individual agencies are negotiated through routines over time.

X closer examination of these myths nil1 reveal several interesting paradoxes. On the one hand, it is clear that we are in the midst of a cultural shift on a par with the great paradigm shifts in the history of science-our understandings of basic philosophical issues are changing. Tl'e can track shifts in our thinking about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge and even the nature of the human being. On the other hand, there is e~idencc to suggest that not enough has changed in our thinking about certain philosophical issues, especially as these relate to the concept of 'information' and ideas about originality, privacy: citizen empowerment, democracy and community. I conclude with a list of questions that emerge from the transformation of one 'age' to another.

Civic hackathons are undeniably fraught. Our projections about civic futures are entangled with collective fantasies abouttechnology. This is a story at least as old as science fiction, yet never ultimately removed from our social realities. In some cases small tasks stimulated the civic imagination on larger public problems. In others, cultural reproduction led people to imagine technology that was already racialized, reflecting collective fears that rise to the top. Yet, I resist dismissing civic hackathons. Donna Haraway would certainly see the fallacy in demanding we return to the deliberation of Tocqueville’s town hall meetings. Plus, as anyone who has participated in local government can tell you, city council meetings are hardly a gold standard for civic participation. Mills reminds us that our rationalities are bounded and exist within a particular historic context. We might never get technology out of politics, or the politics out of technology. In a sense, civic technology may itself be a cyborg formed from our collective hopes and fears, one that we might better learn to live with.

Balsamo's notion of technocultural innovation is quite appropriate for negotiating between critical and design positions on hackathons. First, she defines technologies asmessy combinations of practices, materialities, and affordances. They were never fully captured in artifacts to begin with, and she would simply not regard civic hackathons as their sole point of emergence. Second, although designers hold a particular role in technocultural innovation, Balsamo makes it clear that everyday people can interact with, talk about, act out, and pitch ideas, thereby co-constructing technologies. Many of the examples she provides, such as interactive museum exhibitions, are very hackathon-esque spectacles that bring people into contact with technologies in the process of being designed. Third, Balsamo provides concepts and vocabulary for describing moments of collective design. Cultural models of technology might be reproduced or made anew through the technocultural imagination. Balsamo does not treat the influence of corporations or mythologies of technology (Balsamo, 1996)as necessarily spoiling innovation. Individuals all draw on specific models of technology — practices, affordances, materialities — from everyday life, which must include those created by large companies. Participants can get space of their own, as in the case of Xerox PARC’s RED group, that provide autonomy. Yet, they do not exactly get outside of technology, a point that McKenzie Wark has similarly driven home (Wark, 2004).

Civic hackathons are spaces where the technological imagination and civic imagination collide and jostle as people collectively envision future technologies. Finally, I suggest three lessons drawn from civic hackathons to demonstrate the contradictory and even treacherous ways civic innovation produces ideas. In the conclusion I consider how we might read civic hackathons alongside other modern political formations. After all, civic hackathons are just one part in a larger formation of “open government” that prioritizes direct participation and institutional collaboration as a pathway to reform.

Civic hackathons have been hotly debated in recent years. Critical studies scholars have lambasted civic hackathons for aligning with middle-class citizenship(Irani, 2015)and co-opting participant labor (Gregg, 2014a). Silicon Valley is often the fait accompliin these perspectives, bringing a flawed ideology that seduces organizers and participants into transposing technological language onto civic issues (Also see: Barbrook & Cameron, 1996; Morozov, 2013). In this paper I refer to this perspective as an “imposed civic ideology.” The second perspective comes from design scholars interested in material participation (Marres, 2012) as cohering publics to work on particular social issues. Lodato and DiSalvo (2016) suggested that civic hackathons served two purposes. First, they help people think through civic issues using props — “objects, services, and systems that engage with issues” (p. 16). Second, they cohere ephemeral proto-publics for short-term engagement on issues of public concern. As they summarized, "what is important is not the inventiveness of a particular prototype product or service, but rather, how the event fosters opportunities for collaborative or collective issue articulation" (p. 15). They drew attention to how outcomes of civic hackathons may more likely be social and cultural than functional material objects. I refer to this design perspective as an “emergent civic subjectivity.”

For these women, the values and practices of everyday life intertwine with technical labor. In the 1970s, theorists like Dick Hebdige, Henri LeFebvre, and Michel DeCertau took up everyday life as a site for radically re-imagining social life. The potency of domesticity and the social status of quotidian craftwork became a key precursor to contemporary Feminist thought. Today, it has reemerged in the work of modern-day hackers.By designing hackerspaces to serve domestic and familial needs, and by surfacing a new emotional style through failure, members of women-operated hackerspaces are

Upon closer examination of the appropriation phase, we distinguish three modes of tech-nology appropriation: baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism, by analogy with cul-tural appropriation. Baroquization is the filling-in of technological spaces that providers intentionally leave blank for users to personalize devices and applications; creolizationis bricolage, the recombination of the technology’s components to create something new; and cannibalism is creative destruction, an innovative act that requires breaking down the existing to invent something new.These three forms of appropriation correspond to increasingly confrontational stances users take vis-à-vis technology providers, within a context of asymmetric power. Baroquization is docile, where users follow an appropriation script laid out for them by the provider. Creolization is playful and unpredictable, where users re-mix the providers’ script with their own, in ways that may clash with providers’ interests. At the extreme, cannibalism is deliberately hostile to the providers’ interests. These various appropria-tion modes correspond to progressively deeper user involvement with technology, requir-ing increasingly sophisticated technical skills. All three modes represent creative ways for users to assert greater control over technology, mold it to fit their lives, and make it their own.

First, we view technology evolution as a three-stage cyclical process of adoption, appropriation, and repossession. Users drive adoption. Users and providers alternatively drive appropriation and repossession, as users lead appropriation, while providers react when reclaiming the resulting innova-tions. Second, we identify three appropriation modes—baroquize, creolize, and canni-balize—that represent increasing degrees of power contestation by users. And third, we identify three repossession modes—co-opt, combine, and block—that represent increas-ingly antagonistic reactions by providers and mirror users’ appropriation strategies.

Born in the Plantation, the Hacienda, the Latifundio, and the Mine, creolization is now “scattered in those sheet plates and concrete mazes where our common becoming is adventuring itself, in favellas and mega-cities” (Glissant, 1995: 87). Alive and well, cre-olization can be found where Latin Americans live, in the spaces where they are exposed to new technologies. Born of avoidance (like Internet Protocol (IP) packets that find a route around obstacles) and mixing (like mashups and re-mix), creolization fits the realm of ICTs.

Three strategies deserve particular attention for their symbolic value: cannibalism, baroque, and creolization. Cannibalism is appropriation trough dismembering, absorption, and chemical transformation. Baroque—an infiltration strategy—is the artistic appropria-tion of spaces through filling and layering. In-between, creolization is appropriatio

Throughout history, Latin American populations have had extensive experience with the appropriation of objects, people, and ideas from abroad, most often in unfavorably asymmetric situations. This tradition continues to pro-duce a culture of its own, born from multiple resistance and appropriation strategies.

This article frames appropriation as a political process.

Hacker and maker spaces are community workshops that promote notions of open-access and equal participation. Yet, they tend to embrace a contradiction. Their egalitar-ian goals paradoxically reflect a masculine geek identity anchored by an exclusionary “meritocracy.” Addressing democratization requires questioning how power and identity in hacker and maker spaces can be reconnected and re-programmed. Daniela K. Rosner and Sarah Fox illuminate just such a rich counter-narrative in the feminist hackerspace Mothership Hackermoms. Rosner and Fox argue feminist hackerspaces emerged from legacies of craft, engineering culture, and emotional style through failure. They argue that histories of craft and domesticity don’t just undergird engineering cultures—they provide concepts for women to re-imagine maker spaces in a feminist mold.

We have framed the theme of this issue as “The Democratization of Hacking and Making” to draw attention to the relationships between action, knowledge, and power. Particularly, hacking and making are about how practices of creation and transforma-tion generate knowledge and influence institutions. These acts concentrate and distrib-ute power through publics and counterpublics. Yet, the very mutability of hacker and maker relations makes them a challenge to identify and research. Hacking and making collectives have proven capable of constituting and reconstituting themselves in physi-cal and virtual spaces. They integrate across infrastructures, collaborative systems, socio-economic divides, and international boundaries.

The more pressing threat is that a fear of solution-ism and neoliberal connotations of “open data” together might dissuade political par-ticipation. Systemic social disparities are often intractable. The route to alleviate them has never been detachment or abandonment. Looking forward, we should pay attention to how data activism and advocacy might result in meaningful systematic change beyond the usual claims of “transparency.” To fulfill the possibilities for meaningful social change hinted at in their history, civic hackers might have to coordinate around specific mechanisms for change and articulate a deeper sense of democracy than the language of technology provides.

Might “utopian realist” be applicable to the practices of civic hackers, intertwined with particular repertoires, technologies, and affective publics? McKenzie Wark (2014) sug-gests that the relationship between utopian and realist might be mutually constitutive rather than dialectical. He re-frames utopia as a realizable fragment or diagram that re-imagines relations. From this perspective, civic hacking gets traction not because they were ever intended to be the sole “solution” to a problem, but they are ways of acting and creating that are immediately apprehensible. Prototypes capture the imagination because they are shards of a possible future and can be created, modified, and argued about (Coleman, 2009).

He proposes that “monitorial citizens” act as a watchdog for specific issues, ready to take action. From this perspective, civic hack-ers could be considered a monitorial elite, watching data streams and processes of algorithmic regulation for injustices and engaging directly with local politics. “The local” operates as a point of collaboration (Dunbar-Hester, 2013) and point of entry for geeks to engage with neighborhood issues

Two overall framings of hackers’ engagement with the political have dominated discussion: “hacktivists” or activists who leverage instrumental uses of online technologies for direct political action such as protest and disruption (Jordan and Taylor, 2004), and geographically distributed communities of practice where principles of openness enable forms of political action (Coleman, 2004). Gabriella Coleman (2012a) argues that pragmatism enables action on issues related to informational freedoms and reflects liberal democratic tenets such as freedom of speech. According to Coleman (2004), explicit involvement in “politics” in a formalized sense is distasteful to free and open-source hackers, as it is viewed as “buggy, mediated, and tainted action clouded by ideology” (p. 513). Civic hacking represents a third mode of participation among a group that often explicitly engages with political causes through designing, critiquing, and manipulating software and data to improve community life and infrastructures of governance. Civic hackers therefore have distinct histories, con-tours, and conflicts from other genres of hackers, even as they share a certain family resemblance (Wittgenstein, 1953).

Interactions through things, and perceptions about their potential, were ways to negotiate between seemingly conflicting imperatives of the individualism and communalism (A. L. Toombs, Bardzell, & Bardzell). Members would deliberately design activities that were incomplete to encourage a playful material improvisation. In these ways, the “material sensibilities” of members were particularly important. Similarly, reading a history of craft into software hacking, Lingel and Regan (2014) found that software hackers identified their work with craft as process, embodiment, and community. These sensitive readings of interactions with stuff seemed to more accurately capture the genre of hackerspaces, more so than action was guided by culture.

If you are lucky, you have the conditions and abilities to work all this through in a long, non-linear process also known as bootstrapping, where you go through many iterations of hacking apart and hacking together, all the while creating fundamentally different ideas about what technologies should do, and could do, matched by a succession of devices and practices that help shape these ideas, and “demo” to yourself and others that some utopias might not be out of reach. This is what radical engineers do.

Инвестиционная идея (investment idea) - предложение пользователям для инвестирования. Инвестиционная заявка (investment order) - пользовательская заявка по участию в инвестиционной идее. Пользовательская позиция (position) - акции или доли фонда принадлежащие пользователю в рамках реализации некоторой инвестиционной идеи.

Закупка (procurement) - результат инвестирования для группы заявок. Объединяет позиции.

ACCEPTED

даты и времени закрытия позиции, должна быть в будущем.

factor analysis,

Jessica Helfand in her essay The Dematerialism of Screen Space (2001) critiques the phenomenon of design practise being led by developments in software engineering. She argues that designers should take the initiative: “design must submit to a series of commands and regulations as rigourous as those that once defined Swiss typography. Aesthetic innovation, if it indeed exists at all, occurs within ridiculously preordained parameters: a new plug-in, a modified code, the capacity to make picture and words ‘flash’ with a mouse in a non-sensical little dance. We are all little filmmakers, directing on a pathetically small screen – yet broadcasting to a potentially infinite audience. This in itself is conflicting (not to mention corrupting), but more importantly, what are we making? What are we inventing? What are we saying that has not been said before?” Helfand here is referring to the web, but her argument applies equally well to designing tablet publications. Designers of book and magazine apps should be asking themselves those last three questions. Since tablet publishing conventions are in the process of being formed (like child invention), we have a unique opportunity right now to influence their direction.

Egocentric analysis shifts the analytical lens onto a sole ego actor and concentrates on the local pattern of relations in which that ego is embedded as well as the types of resources to which those relations provide access.

it is possible to examine directed relations in egocentric network studies, or what are referred to as out- and in-neighborhoods: ties sent or ties received

for two high school teachers to occupy a structurally equivalent position, both teachers must teach the same set of students

The North

Each whale is a perceptive messenger of the state of its species, the state of the cetaceans, the state of the oceans as a whole, as close and determined observation by Mayo and many others has shown. Now each piece of baleen is making those animals into messengers from the past, as we are expanding our own range of perception to understand.

but scientists have found that biochemical traces of some of its experiences persist in its body, even long after death. Just as geologists decode the history of the Earth from rocky strata, or dendrochronologists interpret past climactic conditions from tree rings, so biologists are now learning to read a whale’s life history as inscribed in its baleen. This anatomical oddity, part of a class of animal tissues that are emerging as tenacious biological recordkeepers, could reveal a monthly, even weekly, historical record of a whale’s life events stretching back as long as two decades. Just how much it will tell us remains to be seen.

I’ve collected the following list of needs based on what I’ve noticed across projects. I’ve tried to roughly organize it from critical (bottom of Maslow’s pyramid) to legacy (higher on the pyramid).

Open source projects don’t start as communitiesMany would agree that open source projects don’t start out as Bazaars, but just in case, I’ll emphasize the point. Raymond himself wrote:It’s fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn’t try it. I didn’t either.Somebody has to be chiefly responsible for an open source project’s initial development. In Linux’s case, it was Linus. Somebody has to live and breathe the problem all day. Once that project is in a stable position, the community helps support it.

In open source, you can only have “my” in the associative sense. There is no possessive “my” in open source.”

Those in positions of power have always craved a mechanism with which to expose the inner beings of citizens, to reveal ‘the fragment of darkness that we each carry within us’, as Foucault described it. There are, or seem to be, rather dangerous and wild expanses within each individual. If we are to be controlled, that must be made known, and tamed. There is no better way to divide and subdue a people, and seduce them into self-regulation, than to expose their perversions but promise absolution.

Having a smartphone and access to the internet does not automatically equip us with the tools necessary for effective and respectful collaboration, negotiation and speech, such as democracy requires.

In the presence of ever-watchful witnesses, he said, physical coercion is no longer necessary. People police themselves. They do not know what the observers are registering at any given moment, what they are looking for, exactly, or what the punishments are for disobedience. But the imagination keeps them pliant. In these circumstances, Foucault claimed, the architecture of surveillances become perniciously subtle and seamless, so ‘light’ as to be scarcely noticeable.

Bazaars are rhetoric, not reality

As in any contract, there’s a balance of power. If the architecture of today’s web is any indication, that balance is skewed toward the designers. Unless we want to keep pinging around like Skinner’s pigeons (or like poor Michael S), it’s worth paying a little more attention to those whom our attention pays.

At first, if you want to make money, you sell whatever is in the room. Maybe it’s excellent journalism. Maybe it’s a game or a recipe. Maybe it’s an item that will get shipped to someone’s house. In this model, the internet offers a straightforward transactional experience in digital space.Over time, instead of making money from whatever is in each room, companies begin to monetise the doors. They equip them with sensors. Each time you go through one, someone gets paid. Immediately, some people will start adding a lot of new doors. Other people will build rooms that are largely empty, but that function as waystations, designed to get as many people as possible to enter and leave.

This paper analyses some of the tangible and intangibletraces of isolation and segregation on Peel Island, and discusses challenges in their cultural heritagemanagement

Avoid creating big decision hierarchies. Instead, invest in a broad, growing and empowered contributorship that can make progress without intervention. We need to view a constant need for intervention by a few people to make any and every tough decision as the biggest obstacle to healthy Open Source.

Sure, we get bad bugs, but we have a ton of contributors who can immediately work with people who log them to educate them on better practices and treat it as an opportunity to educate. This is why we have documentation on writing good bugs, in order to educate contributors, not as a barrier to entry.Creating barriers to entry just reduces the number of people there’s a chance to identify, educate and potentially grow into greater contributors.

This is what a healthy project should look like. As the demands on the project from increased users rise, so do the contributors, and as contributors increase more are converted into committers. As the committer base grows, more of them rise to the level of expertise where they should be involved in higher level decision making.If these groups don’t grow in proportion to each other they can’t carry the load imposed on them by outward growth. A project’s ability to convert people from each of these groups is the only way it can stay healthy if its user base is growing.

Empirically, I trace how civic hackathons in Los Angeles evolved in 2013 - 2015 from engineering exercises to spectacles where civic futures of technology were performed through communication, before turning to particular lessons drawn from civic hackathons. Civic hackathons’ emergence from technical cultures means they often produce conservative civic visions. I pay close attention to moments of failure – moments when possible technologies reproduced existing cultural divisions. Still, I resist describing them as completely co-opted and useless, as I found surprising moments of civic learning and exploration.

in 1965

Or do we really even own ideas?), and why we would even fuss about ownership might suggest an attachment of monetary value to the shared thing. Or is it really about wanting to get credit? Can we get credit without staking ownership?

Promote a biocentric instead of and anthropocentric paradigms.

Ecocide

Two great Mother Earth defenders were present on the last day of COP 21 in the public area.

PAUL: I feel like I’m going crazy. RAJ: I know you do. But remember, Paul, that is just an idea, just one of an infinitude of ideas, and it therefore holds no position of authority or dominance in your experience. Do not credit it with any value, for it has no more value that any other spurious thought which states an absurd impossibility. Do not attempt to handle it, but simply pass on by.

Weapons of the Weak is not just a political study, however; it is also an outstanding work of ethnography. Based on thorough research and careful, perceptive fieldwork, it manages to avoid some of the failings of traditional ethnography by its emphasis on the centrality of individual human beings in their particular situations. Whether or not it offers definitive answers to the questions it investigates, it certainly provides some solid ground to stand on in looking for them.

todo cuanto t>.S objeto del entendimiento cuando el hombre piensa, lo empleo para significar todo lo que expresamos al decir imagen, noción, especie, o cual­quier cosa en que se emplee la mente al pensar

However, with reasonable efforts (sometimes the equivalent of 3–4 full-time employees over 6–12 months), we have frequently been unable to reconfirm published data