1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
|
---
title: Demokratisk kommuicationsinfrastruktur som motståndsform
subtitle: Technology infrastructure as a common googd
author: Gustav Eek <gustav@fripost.org>
date: tor 13 jul 2017 20:18:26 CEST
...
Script.
# Scattered notes
**Introduction and background -- importance of the Internet**
The importance of Internet as communication medium can not be
questioned. For those who take user freedom seriously it is saddening
to see how the Internet has changed from being a common and highly
distributed network to the increasingly privatised web we encounter
today. The capital constantly require right to increased profit, and
it constantly seeks new grounds
\section*{Software as a Service} A concept introduced in the spirit of
centralisation is \textit{Software as a Service} (SaaS). SaaS means
that users perform their computer work on or through a network server
on the Internet or a local network. Examples of SaaS are Amazon Cloud
and Google Docs. One of the main problems with SaaS is that the users
has no control over their data.
\section*{Privacy and Surveillance}
With large clientele comes a lot of power. Large transnational
operators, such as Google, are profiting from efficient use of privacy
invading schemes. Together with e.g.\ Google's email service one also
gets things that was probably \emph{not} asked for: advertisement,
semantic analysis of email contents, and spying. One part of Google's
marketing strategy is to sell the collected information to third
party.
We formed the association in 2010, seven years ago. Our chairman at
the time, Stefan Kangas poited out to me, what I did not quite
understand at the time, but what is becomming increasingly clear to
me. Fripost is part of a general resistance struggle (motståndskamp)
of global scale (mot griptången). This was in the early beginning of
the Arabic spring in Libya.
(*Citer Mattei s. 64)
The common good (gemensamt nyttiga) is something that is natural to
take as given, and it deserves to be.
**More introduction ideas**
The importance of Internet as communication medium can not be
questioned. For those who take user freedom seriously it is saddening
to see how the Internet has changed from being a common and highly
distributed network to the increasingly privatised web we encounter
today.
In this lecture I will present the democratic principles of Fripost
and demonstrate how also complicated resources, such as infrastructure
for electronic communication can (and must) (*underställas folkligt
demokratiska pricesser?*) (I argue that central communication
infrastructure should be viewed as a resource).
I will start in a (well known) critique of Garret Hardin's classical
tragedy of the commons (*referens*) (one that has been presented many
times before). One example is Duoglad Hine, *What do you mean, "Full
Commonism"?* and *The Friendly Commoner*, FSCONS 2014.
(*Read more on Duoglad Hine's talks*)
Of course we recognise that this process of privatisation and
enclosure (*att hägna in?*) is not isolated to Internet
infrastructure. The capital constantly require right to increased
profit, and it constantly seeks new grounds. However, the Internet and
digital technology an area where this process is very (*närvarande?*).
One of the later (*landvinningar*) is the right consumer data through
various privacy intrusive software as a service technologies (read
Google Drive). And of course state and inter state institutions
rather (*eldar på*) than (*stämmer*) the development.
**Enclosure vs innovation**
(*Continuation on "process of privatisation"*). Digital technology is
intricically intricacy and complicatied in its internals, though still
"friendly" in its usage. Therfore it can be dificult to distinguish
privitasation (*inhängnad*) from innovation.
Side note. In my opinion, private innovation and development is
natural and of not at all problematic. Of course, however as a note to
the note, enclosing technology and restricting its usage (e.g. throung
proprietary software development) is highly non moral and should not
be accepted.
Fripost was founded in order to take back a small, but important, part
of our Internet life, namely the email communication
infrastructure. We gather around several servers that receive and
stores the members' email. The reliability of the service is of cause
of great importance. Therefore the network is arranged with
reliability in mind, and we hire a hosting service for the main
server.
We formed Fripost in 2010 in reaction to ... (*Fyll på med Google och
Facebook, etc*) ...
Proper democracy.
Democracy is about influence and power: the power to make decisions
and have them implemented.
**Citizen Dialogues**
Surveys in Sweden say that people show more interest in
society and politics than some years ago. Still trust and
participation in municipiatal parlamentary proceses and traditional
parties decay.
As a response, the municipalities and regions in Sweden (SKL (*Vad?*))
suggest so called citizen dialogues (*medborgardialoger*), usually in
connection with major infrastructure and city development projects, as
a way gather peoples opinion. This (*tilltag*) is Inspired by Sherry
Airnstein (*Kolla upp detta*) and planning research from the
1960'es. Her original ideas, however, had an equality idea
(*rättvisetanke?*. That idea of equality is totally lost in the way
these "dialoges" are committed: "Symbolic participation", Airnstein
would call it. Real participation require delegated power. (Thörn 2017)
The common good (gemensamt nyttiga) is something that is natural to
take as given, and it deserves to be.
**Compararison with other commons: Common intellect**
I want to put the Internet (and all kinds of tele communication)
besides other common resources, such as (a) our soil, (b) sources of
water, (c) libraries and published knowledge, (d) and more.
Idea (viewpoint) ... owned and managed by one single (*huvudman?*)
... historically speciffic.
Common management (not quite managed) of water in rural India is
described by Vandana Shiva (*provide reference*). Privatisation and
"management" *caused* scarcity.
The fault lies in the dikotonomy *public-private* and in the idea that
every resource needs an owning (*huvudmann?*). What is not managed can
not yield profit. In the case of the (*inhängdad?*) of the commons,
management in it self causes the scarcity, it is not the scarcity that
requires management.
Logic: if it is not scars it can not be managed, and what is not
managed can not yield profit.
Compare owning with being (*äganda med varande*) (Engels). Another
mindset
Ugo Mattei describes this mindset as a *common intellect*.
(*Beskriv också utarmningarna av jordarna som beskrivs i "Den sista
skörden" (eller var det "Slutsködat"?). Exemplifiera också med
Fukuoka's senaste*)
Vandana Shiva, Fukuoka, med flera är alla ekologister. Ugo Mattei
lovordar ekologismen i *ekologism* vs. *ekonomism*. Jag antar att
tre-tuppeln, trikotonomin, ska vara *ekonomism* (privat, begränsad,
hantering), *kommunim* (gemensam hantering) *ekologism* (ingen
hantering eller hantering basserad på gemensamt intellekt).
Föreslår att var och ens moral torde vara giltig liknelse för
gemensamt intellekt. Ekonomismen förutsätter ekonomisk rationalitet
och därmed avsaknad av moral. Kommunismen tillskriver solidaritet och
det gemensamma intresset som grund för moral. De två senare hamnar i
komplicerade förklaringsmodeller för individuellt moraliskt handlande
(*vilke exempel kan vi hitta*) och vill t.ex. förklara hipsters
blygsamhet i konsumtion som rationellt med livsstilsargumentet. Att
helt enkelt acceptera moral som giltig grund för konsumtionsbeslut
torde vara den enklaste modellen. Men bara ekologismen till en sådan.
**Final**
I humbly recognise that what we do is small in scale and ambition. But
I still want to put it in the context of important local struggles
that with global implication. In the world, farmers fight for land,
urban folks for water, and students for independent universities. We
fight for the right and free access to Internet and the means for
communication. Internet is designed to be distributed and for equal
unlimited access for everyone. That sounds quite much like a common
good, and commons require equal influence.
|
