Tag Archives: Politics

The “Sucks To Be You” Society

Jesse Hirsh engages in a profound dialogue with Cory Doctorow, exploring the current socio-political landscape shaped by technology and governance. As they navigate the implications of AI nationalism and authoritarianism, Doctorow offers insights into how these trends echo historical patterns of control and resistance. The conversation delves into the mechanics of social media and the importance of interoperability among platforms like Blue Sky and Mastodon, emphasizing that the future of online communication hinges on user agency and freedom from corporate entrapment. Doctorow articulates a vision for a more decentralized digital ecosystem, where users can migrate seamlessly between platforms without losing their social connections. This dialogue is underscored by the urgency of responding to growing authoritarianism, and Doctorow’s reflections on the necessity of community and solidarity in the face of systemic oppression resonate deeply throughout the episode.

Takeaways:

  • Cory Doctorow emphasizes the importance of understanding that capitalism has various forms, each with different implications for society.
  • The conversation explores the growing divide between for-profit and non-profit social media platforms and their impact on users.
  • Doctorow argues that personal relationships, rather than data, are the main reason people stay on social media platforms.
  • The discussion highlights the need for better interoperability in social media to empower users to leave if they choose.
  • Jesse Hirsh and Cory Doctorow discuss the implications of authoritarian nationalism in the context of the current political climate.
  • Doctorow shares insights on how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act restricts creative freedom and hampers innovation in the digital age.

Links referenced in this episode:

The Media Collective

Join Jesse Hirsh as he engages in a fascinating conversation with David Fingrut, delving into the vibrant history of the media collective and its impact on Toronto's cultural landscape in the 1990s. They explore how this unique social network fostered collaboration among diverse individuals, bridging various political ideologies while promoting creative projects that challenged mainstream narratives. Fingrut shares insights on the collective's ethos, encapsulated in the slogan "don't get caught," highlighting the interplay between activism, media, and public space. The discussion also touches on the evolution of grassroots movements, drawing parallels to contemporary events like Reclaim the Streets, which sought to reclaim urban spaces through creative protest. As they navigate these themes, Hirsh and Fingrut reflect on the ongoing relevance of these movements in today's socio-political climate, emphasizing the importance of community organizing and the fight for justice.

Engaging in a rich conversation about the evolution of media and community activism, Jesse Hirsh and David Fingrut reflect on the legacy of the Media Collective, a group that flourished in Toronto during the late 1990s. Fingrut describes the Media Collective as a vibrant social network that convened in person to collaborate on creative projects, often infused with political undertones. The conversation reveals how the collective fostered a sense of community among diverse individuals who were passionate about media-making and social change, utilizing discussions and monthly meetings to share ideas and launch various initiatives. Hirsh emphasizes the cultural significance of the collective during a period marked by the rise of the internet and alternative media, suggesting that it represented a crucial turning point in how communities engaged with media production.

Delving deeper into the socio-political context of their experiences, the hosts discuss how the Media Collective intersected with movements like Reclaim the Streets, which sought to reclaim public space through creative protests. Fingrut recalls the playful yet poignant tactics employed, such as street theater and spontaneous gatherings, which contrasted sharply with conventional forms of activism. The dialogue highlights the necessity of physical presence and community organizing, especially when juxtaposed against the backdrop of today's digital landscape, where online activism often overshadows physical mobilization. As they navigate through the significance of these grassroots movements, both Hirsh and Fingrut underscore a collective yearning for a return to tangible, community-driven activism in the face of modern challenges.

The episode culminates with a discussion on the future of activism and the role of media in shaping public discourse. The two ponder the implications of the current political climate, particularly as it relates to the rise of authoritarianism and the erosion of public spaces. They reflect on the lessons learned from the Media Collective and how those principles can inform contemporary movements seeking to reclaim agency in a world increasingly dominated by corporate interests. Hirsh and Fingrut's dialogue serves as a poignant reminder of the power of collective action, the importance of community, and the ongoing struggle for a more just and equitable society, urging listeners to reconsider their roles within these narratives of resistance and resilience.

Advice for humans who wish to govern

image

I’d like to offer some advice if you want to get elected, or you’re in the fortunate position of wanting to stay elected. Maybe you’re a career politician, or you’d like to run for office for the first time. Perhaps you live in a democracy, able to vote for your government, or maybe you don’t, and you’re wondering why not. Either way, I offer some perspective, a different way of looking at the problem of government, that I encourage you to consider.

At the Academy of the Impossible I operated the Campaign School, which invited successful politicians, campaigners, strategists, and pollsters, to share their knowledge and wisdom about electoral politics. While the focus was primarily directed toward the needs of people running for office for the first time, there was valuable knowledge for anyone interested in democratic processes.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Specifically one of the recurring themes we tried to address, was the crisis of legitimacy in contemporary democratic politics. Governments, political parties, and especially politicians are generally regarded with cynicism and disdain. People decreasingly trust their elected leaders, and the institutions they are associated with.

It is not so much an issue of apathy, but of relevance, contact, and broader issues of representation in an era of direct interaction. Even our notions of community have radically transformed, from geographically specific constructs, to fluid and flexible configurations based on interests, ethnography, demography, or whatever cool meme or trend is playing out.

Given that our configuration of community has changed, so too has our conception of what a representative is, and what that representative should be. A general consensus among Campaign School participants was that electoral reform was necessary and overdue. Our notions of representation have changed, and existing systems have not kept up at all.

However adjacent to the issue of electoral reform, an interesting insight around relevance emerges.

Specifically I’m observing that ideology is no longer relevant to contemporary electoral democracy. We are no longer electing humans to run a government, we are electing humans to operate a machine. A growing, and rather complex machine, driven by data, and connected to a global machine, whether global village, or global market.

Therefore if you’re a politician driven by ideas, organized with comrades around an ideology, I question whether you will find success. Circumstances may still provide opportunities to share your ideology on the stage, but will you be able to deploy and carry out your ideas? We can see this happening today in Greece, as a government elected on a specific ideological platform is compelled to bend to the needs of the larger regional and global machine.

Algorithms replace Ideology

This is why I argue that the era of ideology has been replaced by the era of algorithms. Where the twentieth century was all about ideas, the twenty first century is all about code, and in particular, the algorithm.

We don’t seem to have the time for ideas when living in the era of complex systems fuelled by massive databases and surveillance streams. Rather we just react to the flows. We respond to the trending topics and whatever flares up in front of us.

Ideology is about beliefs, whereas algorithms are about methods. Ideology requires a grand vision, whereas algorithms require applied practice.

Algorithms are how we process the firehose of information. How we process living in an era of information overload. Without exaggeration we depend upon algorithms to process and describe our reality. We’re relying less and less upon ideas and imagination, but instead upon digitally constructed realities that claim an authority we’re not (yet) able to argue with.

For an ideologue, the end justifies the means. For an algorithm, the process is the purpose, there is no end. The algorithm focuses on the process, whereas ideology focuses on that end. Perhaps there’s a warning here for democracy, as the algorithmic government, devoid of any constraints or controls, governs without an end.

In my lifetime this shift from ideology to algorithm has been simultaneously subtle, and pronounced. While we cling to the language and appearances of the old regime, the new regime has rapidly emerged and replaced the old.

The cold war became the cyber war. Nuclear Armageddon has been replaced by the singularity, skynet, and the robot apocalypse. Hackers are terrorists, terrorists are hackers, and we’re all freedom fighters in the battles for our mind.

What is your Algorithm?

Therefore, to the aspiring or successful politician, I ask you, what is your algorithm? What method do you bring to the table to manage the machines? Or at least to help us understand their commands?

The politics of the twentieth century were about grand ideas. Perhaps the politics of the twenty first century needs to be about small but effective solutions? Better methods instead of steadfast beliefs? Better practices instead of rigid visions?

As a politician, think about coming to the party with a practice, a method, and solutions for the problems that plague society. People don’t want to trust you, but they may give you the chance to help them to try and fix stuff.

To be clear I’m not suggesting algorithms are better than ideologies. I’m just observing a clear shift from one to the other.

For example I don’t see the Chinese Communist Party wanting to relinquish control of the Chinese Government anytime soon. Yet are they really communist or even ideological? Rather they act as an example of a regime that focuses on algorithms instead of ideology. They could expand their political process to allow greater elections and participation, not according to ideology, but based on algorithms. This would allow for good governance while also enabling the stability that is so coveted by centuries of Chinese politicians.

An Ideology for Algorithms?

What about embedding ideology into an algorithm? That’s certainly possible, though an example of new media using old media as its content.

Emit Snake-Beings argues something similar in their paper “From Ideology to Algorithm: the Opaque Politics of the Internet”. Specifically that algorithm has replaced ideology as a method of control, the former absorbing the latter, with a focus on the role of media. The power of the mainstream media being replaced by the power of search engines and social media.

Astrid Mager also argues that search engines have ideology. That capitalism has been baked into search engines, which certainly suggests algorithms could be programed with other ideologies? What would a communist, or anarchist search engine involve?

Manuel Schaeffer argues that ideology has ended in the face of big data:

“the interconnectedness of social, economic and political problems does not allow politicians to force their agenda upon reality anymore.”

Schaeffer and I both argue that this is tied to the erosion of trust and confidence in elected politicians, however he and I disagree on whether “the era of individual leaders with big visions is likely to be over.”

We Still Need Vision and Narrative

This is where you come in. I’m suggesting that you need to combine vision with your algorithm. You’ll need to develop some analytics that give you and your electorate an empirical view of reality and using that engine to offer vision and narrative. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are dependent upon each other.

Left to their own devices, the technocrats will do away with politicians, in the same manner that ideology is being discarded or made irrelevant. This is why the politician needs to evolve, needs to develop new skills, in particular combine algorithmic literacy with old school storytelling. The leaders we need are the ones who can make sense of our world, so together we might be in a position to do something about it.

We should not give up trying to make the world better, or to imagine a different world altogether. Rather you have to articulate the means and not the end. The plan and the policies rather than the vision and the promises.

It’s not where you’re going, it’s how you’re able to get us there.

As for myself, I require your help with the algorithms that govern attention. If my words have helped your understanding or provided any enjoyment please help me by sharing them with others. Amplify the article via your networks triggering certain algorithms to carry these words even further.

image