Today, people in the U.S.
responded to the worst versions of ourselves. And turned out in response that vision.
Tomorrow, I will need to find something to say to my colleagues. Something that holds true to the inclusive messy hope that is democracy.
I have such mixed feelings
About “no one knows how you vote” ads.
The secret ballot is a good thing. It helps prevent pressure and discrimination in all kinds of venues. Voting isn’t the sum total of democracy.
Democracy is about the messy middle of open and inclusive civic spaces. And these ads show us what we are losing.
I know job one is making Harris president. Hence, the mixed feelings. We’ve got to everything we can, once she’s elected, to keep her in office. And this split between who you say you vote for and who you vote for will only feed the fuel of the voting denial playbook Trump is putting place. It will create a cognitive — and I worry violent — break for so many people who are primed with violent imagery and fear.
Like so many Democrats in the U.S., I’ve been refreshing every news site waiting for an end to the will he or won’t he prognosticating. That end hit earlier today when President Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. I’m engaged but not, you know, knowledgeable. So take that as a disclaimer. Still, here are some of the things I’m thinking now:
- Dobbs makes a difference. When Secretary Clinton ran, when now Vice President Harris ran in the last primary session, women could legally depend on support for reproductive choice, even if tenuously.
- She can access the money. Let’s not pretend that doesn’t matter.
- “She can prosecute the case against Trump.” It is a great line.
- Congressman Clyburn.
- Congressman Adam Schiff and Congressman Raskin have both endorsed Vice President Harris. They are both close to the most incisive tactical politician living today.
This is so much bad, I don’t know where to start.
The culture war inside America’s libraries is playing out yet again. This time, it has hit Alabama where conservative activists are demanding the removal of LGBTQ+ inclusive books and other ‘controversial’ materials, and falsely accusing librarians of pushing porn.
There’s the twin errosion of freedom of speech and access to information.
It also pushes for libraries to withdraw as members of the American Library Association (ALA), which it believes uses its “influence to push leftist progressive values” on “traditional communities”.
The ability to freely associate with others is a core civil liberty. This kind of pressure to pull out of associating with other libraries is as dangerous as eroding free speech. > To accomplish these goals, Clean Up Alabama wants to ensure that libraries are no longer exempt from the state's Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act, according to an email sent to the group's newsletter subscribers, the Alabama Political Reporter reported.
This eliminates safe places in which we can learn. > Clean Up Alabama is keen to add LGBTQ+ content to the state's legal definition of “sexual content”, according to the Alabama Political Reporter. The outlet reported this would have a trickle-down effect as it would bring queer books under the definition of content “harmful to minors” in Alabama.
So the idea that this alone makes for sexual content is wrong. But then what else could packaged under this? Reproductive health, certainly. How about intimate partner violence? Sexual assault.
And that this is happening in a state where the senator is holding military promotions hostage in an effort to change the militaries policy on abortion is completely unsurprising and may be signs of a lot of coordination.
Quoted text from PinkNews
How do we value Public Good Technology?
A comment that was made from the stage at Good Tech Fest is sticking with me. A speaker talked about the need for makers to value their work and to find ways to monetize it so that they can continue to deliver, support, and (with perseverance, planning, and a helping of luck) create the intended impact. He pointed out that this is a hard conversation, that the word “monetize” can feel difficult and crass. But, he said, it’s a necessary conversation if we think the work is worth it.
I often make a throwaway comment about monetization; in fact, I had made one from the same stage the day before. I made it about Range, a little app that is close to my heart. Range shows a school-aged youth in the U.S. the nearest place to get a free meal. It works just like you’d expect: It opens to a map. You are the blue dot, and the red dots are all the open summer meal sites. You don’t need to log in and you don’t need to know your zip code. You just need a phone and a data plan. A youth can use it, their caregiver, a librarian, a street outreach worker.
When asked how I am going to monetize Range, I say that I have no intention of monetizing childhood hunger and family poverty. It’s meant to get attention, and it does. The comment at Good Tech Fest made me think more: Am I not valuing the work of this app enough to ask for the money we need to keep it going?
First, a few things:
- I understand monetization as building an earned revenue strategy. Which is not the same thing as ongoing financial support. When I say “monetization” this is what I mean: I am not planning to build a strategy in which the primary beneficiaries of Range are expected to pay (more than their phone and data costs) for its use.
- I am not above — and often do — ask for grant and donor support for Range. In those asks, in fact, I sometimes smile and say to whomever asked, “My monetization strategy is to ask you for money over and over.” I’m not kidding. That’s exactly how the grant system is set up. It doesn't work well for any of us.
- We made Range as skinny as we could. It uses data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Also, Range doesn't require a login so we don’t have to worry about storing and protecting PII, especially PII of minors.
- Because the impact is common sense and additive — and the project itself is so lightweight and inexpensive — we have not done anything approaching a full-scale evaluation. We do know that the use is increasing. We know the school districts throughout Pennsylvania point to it as a resource for summer meals. As do PTAs around the country. We know that Summer Meal Administrators in some states use it to make sure the data they have and are submitting to the USDA are accurate. We are also able to confirm that meal sites really are in the given location and really are open on the published days and hours.
- Honestly, that’s enough for us to keep the app going.
We've asked for money. Money to expand the features in Range so trusted individuals are able to add, remove, and edit sites. Money to update the technology used to power the app. Money to do more interviews and understand how it’s being used by site administrators to see if there is functionality we could build out for them.
And we have been told “no” every time.
No, because we don’t have a monetization strategy. No, because there are other places youth and their caregivers can learn the location of meals. No, because we haven’t done an evaluation. No, because we can’t prove the long-term impact.
I’ve struggled with all of this. It’s so inexpensive. $20,000 would go far in improving Range. Let us spend that, and get more info about the use and share it. But please don’t ask us to do an evaluation that would cost more than the app costs to build, maintain, and deliver. Please don’t ask us to hold information on young people and those who care about them. There's no reason to add that overhead to this effort. Instead, let us do interviews that help us build the functionality and utility. Let us use implicit measures of impact. We can assume, for example, that Pennsylvania finds Range valuable because they share it. We can assume they share it because it is valuable for their community.
So, how do we talk about this in a way that isn’t just “give us money because we like our idea” or “we don’t value this enough to support it financially, not really”?
Should we use a different way of thinking about how to fund these projects? Projects that are more like a public good?
A lighthouse is often used as an example of a public good (and challenged as an example). I find it useful here:
- It provides a benefit to everyone — sailors, ship owners, merchants, people who depend on the goods in the ship, and casual boaters.
- It's hard (if not impossible) to exclude a set of people from its benefits.
- It does not get less bright for one ship if another is using it.
There are many schemes to pay for the operation of a lighthouse. They can rely on something like a tax taken at port — a shipowner pays based on their share of the value. A percent based on the value of their cargo, say.
So how can we extend this idea to create a fund for tools like Range? Tools that aren’t the direct provision of services but make those services, in some way, work better.
How do we get money into that fund?
The government? They are paying for the direct provision of services. And that is hard. Organizations like Feeding America talk about the importance of the Farm Bill. I’d like to hold the federal government accountable for the infrastructure and tools that support their programs. But they are not doing enough to support basic provisions. It makes me think we should keep the fight there. Which I know let’s them off the hook. At least for now.
People who are providing the equivalent for-profit commercial resources? So, in this example, it might be grocery stores, restaurants owners of a certain size, companies like those that make food delivery apps. A small percent of their money could go into this fund. We have something like it with the Community Reinvestment Act. With the way we settle lawsuits or distribute fines.
Foundations? They could pay into a fund proportionate to their funding in the issue area. Give USD 2 M a year to food security organizations? Put .5% of that into a fund that helps build out the tooling that makes them better, as a whole. There are examples: Blue Meridian is just one of them.
How is this different from what happens now? We provide a clear total for money that is dedicated to supporting the tools that make the provision of services work better. It demonstrates the value of these tools to everyone, including the Makers. It reduces competition — no longer forcing digital infrastructure to compete with the actual services themselves. If done well, it incentivizes collaboration.
I believe this kind of strategy supports the Makers of these products and encourages them to build products that can continue to be delivered and improved. It does that without putting a burden on the Maker to figure out an earned revenue strategy. It acknowledges that many of these tools are not intended to return a profit and are being made a public good.
There are many issues, of course, that would have to be worked out. How do you govern such a fund? How do you apply for funds? What requirements might we put on people who access these funds? How do we share results in a way that accelerates what we know about the field?
But all of this feels like it could be a part of a structural shift that responds to the prompt about valuing the time and effort of the people who make public good technology. and start to build out a financial infrastructure that can support a subset of these.
*The photo above has nothing to do with the post; I just like it.
Thoughts after reading “The Fediverse is Already Dead”
Finished reading The Fediverse is Already Dead by noracodes j and still trying to work out what I think — which I love. Some initial thoughts:
- ActivityPub is where it’s at. I keep wondering if there’s a way ActivityPub can help make social graphs so those are the networks we talk about rather than the tool, such as Mastodon
- I like the distinction of talking about communities and prioritizing the values of the particular server or instance
- I would also separate the idea of a network which can cross communities
- Tools like Micro.blog are using ActivityPub to help people publish and share across tools — even different form factors
- Others like Write.as let you publish to Mastodon. I worry about the value of that republishing when it doesn't come with engagement
- PolicyKit is a decentralized tool that replaces permissions/roles with rules/policies. I wonder if it could be integrated with, say, a mastodon server so that the community itself could determine the rules
- I just read about Spring '83 last night so this might really be recency bias but ... I wonder how the concept of a “board” articulated in that protocol could be used to help follow across a wide variety of published content and how it could play with/use ActivityPub
False data, no data for a critical service
After defending false data, Comcast admits another FCC broadband map mistake | Ars Technica.
Last week, I spent two days with food bankers. Digital equity was a big part of what they talked about. The stories they told give more color and detail to the findings in the recent digital equity survey published by Connect Humanity. TechSoup partnered in the survey.
We do not have good maps of access (see the link above). We have worse data on all the various elements that makes up real genuine access – space, time, devices, skills.
We’ve got to change this.
Link Bundle: En Route to Ohio Edition
Civil Society Signal and Noise?
I’ve noticed an uptick in my email of research reports from nonprofits and advocacy groups. I suppose this makes sense in a time of continued pressures on journalism and the swamp of bad information that is the internet. How should we know to trust these reports?
AI won’t make artists redundant – thanks to information theory – Piotr Migdał via Hacker News and read the comments.
Would be easy to create conceptually and aesthetically new works using prompts? Think about “addiction to social media” or even a broader idea “a current societal problem”. The question of “how?” turns quickly into “what do we want to do in the first place?”. Sure, you can create a stock image of someone looking at their phone. But if you want to create something genuinely new, you will need to expand your prompt a lot.
The top five artists, as selected by the public, will comprise a “Fans’ Ballot” that will be tallied along with the other ballots to choose the 2023 inductees.
Roots of Rock & Roll | Country, Folk, and Bluegrass
Playlist from they Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
Link Bundle: Mid-week edition
The Breadth of the Fediverse | Electronic Frontier Foundation
People coming from Twitter tend to think of the fediverse as a Twitter-replacement for the obvious reasons, and thus use Mastodon (or perhaps micro.blog), but that’s only a fraction of its potential. The question isn’t if the fediverse can replace Twitter, but if protocols can usurp platforms in our life online. With enough momentum the fediverse can be the fabric of the social web, incorporating existing systems like Tumblr and Medium and outright replacing stragglers.
Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech via Of Course Mastodon Lost Users
Moving to a world where protocols and not proprietary platforms dominate would solve many issues currently facing the internet today. Rather than relying on a few giant platforms to police speech online, there could be widespread competition, in which anyone could design their own interfaces, filters, and additional services, allowing whichever ones work best to succeed, without having to resort to outright censorship for certain voices. It would allow end users to determine their own tolerances for different types of speech but make it much easier for most people to avoid the most problematic speech, without silencing anyone entirely or having the platforms themselves make the decisions about who is allowed to speak.
Doc Searls Weblog · Is Mastodon a commons?
I find myself wondering if each of Mastodon’s boats is a commons. Or if some of them could be, or already are. Or if Mastodon itself is one.
Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong? | MIT Technology Review
But when she looked at the ideas themselves, Cornforth had questions: “I was like, ‘You didn’t talk to anyone who works in a school, did you?’ They were not contextualized in the problem at all.” The deep expertise in the communities of educators and administrators she worked with, Cornforth saw, was in tension with the disruptive, startup-flavored creativity of the design thinking process at consultancies like IDEO.org. “I felt like a stick in the mud to them,” she recalls. “And I felt they were out of touch with reality.”
How New Ideas Arise | The MIT Press Reader
Ideas arise from boredom. During a conference on film in Assisi in 1962, Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini got bored and started absentmindedly flipping through a copy of the Gospel of Matthew. He was struck with how the world of the farmer in the age of Christ was documented in a text that was important not only for its religious fervor but also for its realistic brutality. This inspired the amazing shots of his film “La ricotta” and, later, the revolutionary shots of “Il Vangelo secondo Matteo.”