Creative Research
9 Nov 2020
Concept 2: Reclaim Internet Infrastructure; Create local networks, custom digital systems, understand tech, Rewrite rules of technology
Concept 2: Reclaim technology
The internet and the onset of affordable consumer digital technologies promised us a new and limitless world, where we could make new rules and exist how we see fit. However, that never quite happened. Just like in the real world, those in power, and those in control of the technology quickly took control of digital technologies, and designed them in order to reinforce their position in power. Back in the early days, when dial-up internet, and Windows 95 was all the rage, the internet was evolving rapidly, and the landscape would change every time I logged on. Metaphorically, it felt like a wide, open, and largely empty landscape, and you had to know which websites to visit in order to visit places on the internet. Today, it feels like a collection of large cities, where most people can be found at, and desolate land between the cities. The internet is largely controlled by a few organizations and people, who by extension of their control, also end up defining the future of technology. The cycle of power simply augments these organizations, which gives them even more power.
I wouldn’t have ever imagined that Facebook, a website, would end up facilitating the corruption of a democracy, or the genocide of communities. The internet has outgrown the digital realm, and in many cases, wields more power than most nations. Many of these corporations were founded and headquartered in the U.S., and as such have a certain kind of people who make the decisions, which will eventually impact the lives of someone living halfway across the world. The butterfly effect is very real, and can be seen in real time. Google, Facebook and Microsoft have passed ‘policies’ so to say, in the way that they conduct their businesses, and govern their platforms. These ‘policies’ have far more impact than most governments do. With the fluid, and elastic nature of the internet and digital technologies, any kind of change can have a massive impact on the people who use the internet and digital technologies.
I’m concerned about the lack of control and influence over the technologies we use. The power to design our technology, and by extension, our future, is in the hands of a select few. Big Tech is indeed too big, and has a disproportionate amount of power. With the digital realm becoming ever more important, it’s critical that we the people understand how technology works, and how we can either influence the design of the technologies we use, or create our own. This is easier said than done, as can be witnessed with several technology development programmes around the world. India for example, is grappling with designing and manufacturing custom central processing units (CPU), a critical component of creating home-grown computer hardware. It’s also been interesting to see North Korea develop systems to support the country without external influences. There’s a balance to be maintained between exclusionary practices and mass centralization, and that starts with wanting to reclaim the technology we use, and the power it brings with it.
There’s a few questions that catalysed my thinking about reclaiming technology. I’ve always wondered, what would the world look like if it wasn’t designed in large part by former colonialists, and the West? What would the internet be like if it was designed in India? Would digital communication look any different if it was conceptualized by people in Central Asia? Erring to the extreme, what would smartphones look like if they were designed by religious fanatics? Some questions are more sane than others, but they are all equally valid in my point of view. It’s difficult to even think of answers to these questions, because it’s difficult to imagine places other than Silicon Valley, and the like, designing technology that people across the world use.
There is one case study which is interesting, and sheds light on the monopolisation of technology. When the U.S. government stopped American companies from supplying technology to Chinese companies, Huawei was adversely affected. Although they are unique in the way that they design and manufacture their own computing hardware (primarily smartphones), they use Google’s Android operating system. With this ban by the U.S. government, Huawei was forced to start developing its own operating system for their smartphones, in order to offer a compelling product. Depending on where you lie on the political spectrum, this may seem silly, or a crushing victory for the U.S., but it does lead to the possibility of Huawei developing an operating system designed for their customers (primarily in China and Asia), which could potentially end being far better in these markets. I for one, am very curious to see the development of the upcoming Harmony OS. A brand new, homegrown smartphone operating system designed primarily for Chinese and Asian users is a very exciting proposition in the current duopolistic market.
It’s not just smartphone owners, and people in the tech industry who could benefit from dismantling the current technology. There’s people on the other end of the spectrum who could greatly benefit from this as well. It’s been a few years since Facebook launched a massive campaign to convince the people of India to buy into their plan of providing free internet, with strings attached of course. The advertising blitz spoke about the possibility of ‘free’ internet and the ability to use Facebook without data charges. Luckily, the government saw through the deception, and they weren’t allowed to set up what was quite clearly an attempt to corrupt net neutrality rules in India. For me this situation was quite interesting. There were people who were supporting Facebook’s initiative because it would give ‘free’ internet access to many who couldn’t afford it before. As it happened, data rates fell dramatically due to fierce competition in the telecom industry, and now India has the lowest data rates of any country in the world. This ‘competition’ in itself deserves to be unpacked and explored further, but the root issue is the difficulty for many people in accessing the internet and digital technology. It is critical that we bridge the gap between demand and supply, but on the right terms, and on conditions that are beneficial to the users. The promise of emancipation and progress often brings with it the acceptance of certain compromises which disproportionately affect certain people and communities.
I see a need to reclaim the power to create and shape technologies for ourselves, for the people, by the people. We need to create technologies that are highly contextual, and are designed specifically for the context and people where it is being used. This could take any given form, perhaps a local area network, which helps communities work together, or community data collection centers, which creates local data to help governments make decisions. This could also take the form of education, awareness, and formal training. Although the idea of ‘local’ technologies and its potential applications are quite exciting, I mustn’t discard the dangers high levels of fragmentation could bring. Technologies need to be developed in a holistic manner, using commonly used open source platforms which allow for communication between communities.
The phrase, ‘healthy technologies’ often comes to mind. The thought of starting from scratch, and building afresh is very exciting, and I wonder what decisions will be made in the conceptualising of new technologies. It’s possible that we may end up with the same kind of technology, with similar rules, and similar power structures.
I don’t know what these reclaimed technologies could look like, but I’m very much looking to find out. Local intranets are a good place to look for references and examples of custom local technology. Intranets are in essence, localised internets which have their own rules, and ways of networking. Just like google.com, or facebook.com are places to visit on the internet, there are certain websites only available on intranets where people congregate on, or files and folders which people often access. It’s very interesting to see different rituals that have come about as a result of new kinds of interaction and information that comes with an intranet.
Bristol, a city in the United Kingdom is a ‘smart-city’ which uses a multitude of sensors to help the city make decisions about traffic, utilities, and future developments. The creation of more data points to help maintain the health of a city is very interesting. The data empowers the city to make the right decisions, without having to rely on the existing nationwide network which isn’t as accurate.
The Raspberry Pi is a great example of a cheap computing device which can be used for a variety of purposes. It’s ability to adapt to different kinds of hardware, and ease with which it can be programmed makes it a great platform to create local technologies. George Hotz, the creator of commaai, an open source self driving hardware/software stack has been actively creating his own technology. His most recent project, tinygrad, is a small neural network that runs on a Mac+AMD GPU’s (platforms traditionally shunned by ML). He’s also developed a 12 week learning module to teach people the basics of a transistor all the way to working with an FPGA board.
With the advent of machine learning applications, the divide between the technologically engaged and those who are not will only deepen. It’s important that we right the ship and give people the opportunity to empower themselves with technology.