Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
companys at stanford.edu
Tue May 8 18:12:34 PDT 2012
Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
I gave a talk with Jacob Applebaum at last week's Re:publica conference in
It seems it had fallen to us to break a little bad news. Here it is.
- We are not progressing from a primitive era of centralized social media
to an emerging era of decentralized social media, the reverse is happening.
- Surveillance and control of users is not some sort of unintended
consequence of social media platforms, it is the reason they exist.
- Privacy is not simply a consumer choice, it is a matter of power and
Earlier at Re:publica, Eben Moglen, the brilliant and tireless legal
council of the Free Software Foundation and founder of the FreedomBox
Foundation, gave a characteristically excellent speech.
However, in his enthusiasm, he makes makes a claim that seems very wrong.
Moglen, claims that Facebook's days as a dominant platform are numbered,
because we will soon have decentralized social platforms, based on projects
such as FreedomBox, users will operate their own federated platforms and
form collective social platforms based on their own hardware, retain
control of their own data, etc.
I can understand and share Moglen's enthusiasm for such a vision, however
this is not the observable history of our communications platforms, not the
obvious direction they seem to be headed, and there is no clear reason to
believe this will change.
The trajectory that Moglen is using has centralized social media as the
starting point and distributed social media as the place we are moving
toward. But in actual fact, distributed social media is where we started,
and centralized platforms are where we have arrived.
The Internet is a distributed social media platform. The classic internet
platforms that existed before the commercialization of the web provided all
the features of modern social media monopolies.
Platforms like Usenet, Email, IRC and Finger allowed us to do everything we
do now with Facebook and friends. We could post status updates, share
pictures, send messages, etc. Yet, these platforms have been more or less
abandoned. So the question we need to address is not so much how we can
invent a distributed social platform, but how and why we started from a
fully distributed social platform and replaced it with centralized social
The answer is quite simple. The early internet was not significantly
capitalist funded, the change in application topology came along with
commercialization, and it is a consequence of the business models required
by capitalist investors to capture profit.
The business model of social media platforms is surveillance and behavioral
control. The internet's original protocols and architecture made
surveillance and behavioral control more difficult. Once capital became the
dominant source of financing it directed investment toward centralized
platforms, which are better at providing such surveillance and control, the
original platforms were starved of financing. The centralized platforms
grew and the decentralized platforms submerged beneath the rising tides of
the capitalist web.
This is nothing new. This was the same business model that capital devised
for media in general, such as network television. The customer of network
television is not the viewer, rather the viewer is the product, the
"audience commodity." The real customer is the advertisers and lobby groups
that want to control this audience.
Network Television didn't provide the surveillance part, so advertisers
needed to employ market research and ratings firms such as Neielson for
that bit. This was a major advantage of social media, richer data from
better surveillance allowed for more effective behavioral control than ever
before possible, using tracking, targeting, machine learning, behavioral
retargeting, among many techniques made possible by the deep pool of data
companies like Facebook and Google have available.
This is not a choice that capitalist made, this is the only way that
profit-driven organizations can provide a public good like a communication
platform. Capitalist investors must capture profit or lose their capital.
If their platforms can not capture profit, they vanish.
So, if capitalism will not fund free, federated social platforms, what
will? For Moglen's optimistic trajectory to pan out, this implies that
funds can come from the public sector, or from volunteers/donators etc? But
if these sectors where capable of turning the tide on social media
monopolies, wouldn't they have already done so? After all, the internet
started out as a decentralized platform, so it's not like they had to play
catch-up, they had a significant head start. Yet, you could fill many a
curio case with technologies dreamed up and abandoned because they where
unable to be sustained without financing.
Give the continuous march of neoliberal public sector retrenchment, the
austerity craze and the ever increasing precariousness of most communities,
it seems unlikely the public or voluntary sectors will be the source of
such a dramatic turnaround. Given the general tendency of capitalist
economies toward accumulation and consolidation, such a turnaround seems
even less likely.
Thus, there is no real reason to believe Moglen's trajectory will come
about. The obstacle to decentralized social media is not that it has not
been invented, but the profit-motive itself. Thus to reverse this
trajectory back towards decentralization, requires not so much technical
initiative, but political struggle.
So long as we maintain the social choice to provision our communication
systems according to the profit motive, we will only get communications
platforms that allow for the capture of profit. Free, open systems, that
neither surveil, nor control, nor exclude, will not be funded, as they do
not provide the mechanisms required to capture profit.
Facebook is worth billions precisely because of it's capacity for
surveillance and control. Same with Google.
Thus, like the struggle for other public goods, like education, child care,
and health care, free communication platforms for the masses can only come
from collective political struggle to achieve such platforms.
In the meantime, we have many clever and dedicated people contributing to
inventing alternative platforms, and these platforms can be very important
and worthwhile for the minority that will ever use them, but we do not have
the social will nor capacity to bring these platforms to the masses, and
given the dominance of capital in our society, it's not clear where such
capacity will come from.
As surveillance and control is enforced by the powerful interests of
capital, privacy and autonomy become a question of power and privilege, not
just consumer choice.
It's not simply a question of choosing to use certain platforms over
others, it's not a question of openness and visibility being the new way
people live in a networked society. Rather it's a fact that our platforms
are financed for the purpose of watching people and pushing them to behave
in ways that benefit the operators of the platform and their real
customers, the advertisers, and the industrial and political lobbies. The
platform exists to shape society according to the interests of these
advertisers and lobbies.
As such, how coercive these platforms are largely depend on the degree to
which your behaviour is aligned with the platform-operators' profit-driven
objectives, and thus privacy and autonomy is not just a feature any given
platforms my or may not offer, but determine the possibility of resistance,
determine our ability to work against powerful interests' efforts to shape
society in ways we disagree with. As Jake said at our talk "We can't have
post-privacy until we are post-privilege"
Eliminating privilege is a political struggle, not a technical one.
I'll be at Stammtisch as usual around 9pm, please come by, anybody still
hanging around after #rp12 is more than welcome to join us. You can find us
A sharable version of this text can be found here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech