Situated technologies and digital self-management

Abstract

The emergence of the pandemic has only triggered privatization trends, promoting data mining and algorithmic governance. The public spaces that we inhabit have been almost completely replaced by private spaces and what is worse, the digital infrastructures necessary for public management are being provided increasingly by private companies, generating a hidden privatization of education, health, surveillance… Only large companies have the resources to store the vast amounts of data we produce and with algorithms sophisticated enough to manage them. But can we still talk about public education when the new digital space in which it happens is Google? Can an algorithm protected by an intellectual property, which we do not know how it works, decide who is arrested or not for a crime? Can we be digital citizens in environments where just by entering we become products? Do we have to adapt to homogenizing global technologies instead of generating technologies that adapt to our needs? Can the future ultimately be guided by a commercial interest?

In the conference we will address the urgency of a digital autonomy that includes open data and software, but also the whole network infrastructure; the urgency to fight for the right to inhabit a digital space that is not governed by commercial interests but by the common good; the importance of generating situated technologies and, why not, the proposal of a playful governance.

Full text

2524 DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Eurídice Cabañes
Situated technologies and digital self-management
DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Renata Ávila
A three ingredients recipe for combating digital colonialism in the city
other cities, that rescues its own sound and lm
archives, that reinvents culture by rediscovering
and distributing its own. A space for exchange
with other sister cities that makes it possible to
discover ‘the other’ far away from the culture of
consumption, appearances, and entertainment.
A space for building a new shared digital culture.
The combination of these ingredients can lead
us towards a formula for a possible urban digi-
tal future, one where creativity is centre stage,
where the power of technological empires can
be diluted, allowing us to be creative without be-
ing dependent on them, where there can be a re-
newal of generativity, freedom and the recovery
of our power to create new social and cultural
architectures, dissolving barriers, bringing cul-
tures together, shaping new communities and
opening up new possibilities.
Renata Ávila
(<A+> Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms)
tems and to increase the opportunities they offer
for creativity and action to members of all social
strata, in physical and digital hybrid spaces.
Achieving this is important not only as a coun-
terbalance to the use of data by the technologi-
cal monopolies, but also as a guarantee of digital
and data autonomy that resides with people, ra-
ther than in isolated projects.
3. Reclaiming a free digital culture
The global COVID-19 pandemic has once again
underlined both the importance of green space
for our physical health, and that of cultural space
for our mental and social well-being. With mu-
seums and cultural institutions actively bringing
citizens together via free events, a space has
been opened up for a digital layer that includes
those who cannot attend events or visit cultural
spaces, recalling the early days of the Internet
when there was a commitment to a free and in-
clusive digital culture.
In view of corporate capture, intense pollution
through advertising and monitoring, and the
concentration of the production and distribution
of online content in the hands of the few, the city
could provide an alternative by supporting the
production and distribution of free licensed digi-
tal content. An alternative that could rescue both
culture and space at the same time. By combi-
ning it with today's digital distribution opportuni-
ties, rather than an Internet of connected things,
we would have an Internet of connected urban
cultural points and the sharing of P2P content.
Exploring the opportunities for distribution via
community citizen networks. Reinventing con-
certs and the theatre as hybrids to which many
more people can have access. A cultural space
free from the padlocks that protect spaces that
can solely be accessed via payment, and that
only offer humdrum content. A space that invi-
tes remixing and an exchange of content with
digital space that is not governed by commercial
interests, but by the common good; and the im-
portance of generating situated technologies
and - why not? - the proposal for game-based
governance.
1. Problems of digital
dependence
1.1.- Emergency:
While our social relationships, work, leisure and
virtually all facets of our lives increasingly take
place in digital environments, the emergence of
the global pandemic has signicantly accelera-
ted this trend. The emergency has forced us to re-
sort to teleworking or remote learning, involving
a massive deployment of proprietary software by
the general population as well as companies and
institutions of a public and private nature.
While we used to build citizenship in the public
space, by swapping streets and squares for so-
cial networks, the possibilities of inhabiting the
world have become restricted to private spaces,
both the home and the digital spaces in which
we operate. This emergency, more than ever,
has exposed the lack of public digital infrastruc-
ture and the dependence on large technologi-
cal giants in what could be considered a covert
privatisation of public services, in which gover-
0.- Introduction:
The emergence of the coronavirus pandemic
has done nothing but trigger privatisation ten-
dencies and promote data extractivism and al-
gorithmic governance. The public spaces we
used to inhabit have been almost completely
replaced by private spaces. What's worse, the
digital infrastructures necessary for public ma-
nagement are increasingly provided by private
companies, leading to a covert privatisation of
education, health, surveillance, etc. Only large
companies have the resources to store the vast
amounts of data that we produce, and the algo-
rithms that are sophisticated enough to mana-
ge it. But can we continue talking about public
education when the new digital space in which
this education occurs belongs to Google? Can an
algorithm protected by an intellectual property,
which we don't know how it works, decide who is
arrested or not for a crime? Can we be digital citi-
zens in environments where, just by entering, we
become products? Do we have to adapt to global
homogenising technologies instead of genera-
ting technologies that adapt to our needs? Can
the future ultimately be guided by a commercial
interest?
We will address the urgency of a digital auto-
nomy that includes open-access data and sof-
tware, but also the entire network infrastructu-
re; the urgency to ght for the right to inhabit a
Situated technologies
and digital self-management
By Eurídice Cabañes (ArsGames)
 Watch the session here

272626 DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Eurídice Cabañes
Situated technologies and digital self-management
DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Eurídice Cabañes
Situated technologies and digital self-management
sent to the transfer of their data, are unknowingly
giving away thousands of pieces of information to
large corporations that will undoubtedly restrict
their future possibilities, with the approval of the
education community and their families.
As X-net denounces in the article entitled Don't
sign the authorisation to use Google Suite in
schools, "if the students' data reach the mar-
ket of information trac for commercial use,
the violation of minors' privacy can radically
affect their future, exposing them to lifelong
eating disorders, academic failures, sociability
problems, bullying, etc. [...] data coveted by in-
surers, recruitment companies and marketing
and communication companies, who could use
the data in all sorts of contexts (health or car in-
surance contracts, recruitment processes, en-
try exams, advertising or marketing campaig-
ns, etc.) without even the children knowing that
their personal life has been exposed from a very
early age when they were still unaware of their
life options and when their personality was still
being formed" (X-net, 2019)
Google is currently being sued for collecting in-
formation from more than 80 million teachers
and students in New Mexico, and using said in-
formation for its own business purposes. (Singer
and Wakabayashi, 2020)
This is just a small example, but the covert priva-
tisation of public services reaches practically all
areas. Surveillance cameras in public spaces de-
tect and identify citizens using private facial re-
cognition algorithms. Algorithms to which we do
not have access (neither citizens nor the govern-
ments that hire the service), which are capable of
determining who is arrested and who is not. Sta-
te-owned information is also stored on Amazon
servers, with the current president of Spain, Pe-
dro Sánchez, saying the following about Amazon's
2.5 billion Euro investment in the construction of
data centres in Aragón: “Cloud-based computing,
nments are increasingly handing over telecom-
munications infrastructure contracts to private,
often transnational, companies.
1.2.- The covert privatisation
of public resources
Let us think about one of the clearest exam-
ples of such privatisation: education. In order to
guarantee the right to a high-quality public edu-
cation, the state guarantees the entire infras-
tructure: the building in which the teaching is
delivered, the heating, the electricity, the inter-
net, the teachers, etc. When this education has
become digital, in the vast majority of cases the
public infrastructure for this education has not
been guaranteed: no space, no heating, no elec-
trical connection, no internet and no devices
to connect to, widening the gap between tho-
se who privately have everything they need and
those who do not, with the latter being excluded
from the universal right to education.
But the privatisation doesn't end there, even in
cases where there has been full access under
ideal conditions, where families privately pro-
vided everything mentioned above. In the vast
majority of cases, Google Classroom, Zoom and
other proprietary tools have made up for the lack
of public infrastructure, determining the condi-
tions of access, transit and interaction with the
space without us being fully aware of the condi-
tions or having access to the code or the algori-
thms that govern them.
What we know is that these kinds of proprietary
systems do not respond to the interests of the
students. Rather, they respond to the interests
of the large companies which prot from data ex-
tractivism, with these companies monitoring chil-
dren’s information and measuring their progress,
comparing it with that of other students and pre-
dicting their future learning (Selwyn, 2015). Mi-
nors, who can't even have their own social media
account because they aren't old enough to con-
It is in this sense that I propose the term "situa-
ted technologies" which is based on the concept
of "situated knowledge" by Dona Haraway (2004)
and refers to technologies that are generated
from local needs and contexts.
For this to happen, we need data to be decen-
tralised, anonymous and for the people who ge-
nerate it; open-access software programmes
in which the code can be accessed and modi-
ed to adapt them to the specic needs of each
community; and high-quality public infrastruc-
tures that include servers, internet connection
and a large computing capacity, which simply
cannot remain in private hands. Without the-
se, the struggle for technological self-manage-
ment will not be possible.
2.2.- In contrast to algorithmic governance,
game-based governance1
Let us imagine a future in which cities are
modelled, tested, designed and re-modelled
through interactive and collaborative ga-
mes [...] The games can be used to facilitate
complex urban development processes at
all scales (such as high-quality public spa-
ce, urban safety, sustainability, etc.), where
both stakeholders and other participants
can better understand the processes. (Ger-
ber and Götz, 2020)
Algorithmic governance processes are opaque,
hierarchical and asymmetric. Or, in the words of
Keenan (2017), they have reached a "privacy singu-
larity" whereby companies know much more about
us than we do about their algorithms that govern
us and determine our future, in many cases stig-
matising entire communities or neighbourhoods2.
We propose transforming this into a process of
game-based governance, by which it is the citi-
1 For a more detailed study of this concept please see Cabañes (2021)
2 For an example, please see Sandvig et al. (2016) or Hamilton (2019).
besides promoting technological progress in the
private sector, will allow the public administra-
tion to improve the services that it provides to ci-
tizens". In other words, the data of citizens from
different public areas are in the hands of private
transnational companies (Jiménez, 2019).
The more information we give away, the more
we are feeding the monster of algorithmic go-
vernance, whereby the algorithms that govern
us are modifying our thoughts, behaviours, ri-
ghts and freedoms, while deciding how cities
and the lives of their inhabitants are managed.
Let us not forget that algorithms are not neu-
tral. Rather, they are proven to be sexist, racist
and classist (Sandvig et al., 2016 and Hamilton,
2019) and are governed by commercial inte-
rests, making them easily bribable.
2. Proposals of digital autonomy
2.1.- Situated technologies
It is curious, to say the least, that given so many
different contexts and needs around the globe,
the digital technologies that we use are global.
They are homogeneous and homogenising tech-
nologies, which do not respond to the interests
and needs of the people who use them, but to
those of the companies that own them, for whom
the product is us and our information. Therefore,
they will not hesitate to introduce elements in
the design that allow them to extract more infor-
mation about us (unlocking your phone with your
face or ngerprint, constant notications to be
constantly connected and other dark patterns to
encourage addiction) and that have little to do
with usability issues.
This means that the world's population is adap-
ting to technology that is controlled by the inte-
rests of large internet corporations.

292828 DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Eurídice Cabañes
Situated technologies and digital self-management
DECIDIM FEST 2020 · 18 - 20 November | Eurídice Cabañes
Situated technologies and digital self-management
3.- Conclusions
If our future is increasingly dened by what ha-
ppens in the digital environment, and this de-
pends on the commercial interests of the main
technology companies that have the infrastruc-
tures and sucient power to process the large
amounts they extract from the public, the future
is far from being dened by giving priority to the
common good. We need to reverse this process,
using technologies to increase social inclusion
and direct democracy in decision-making.
For this we need digital public spaces (public in
all the necessary infrastructure), in which we
have power over how they work as well as over
the data we generate.
It is in our hands to ght for the right to make a
collective decision on our future, including open
data and the appropriation of these technologies
that instead of being governed by commercial in-
terests, become governed by common interests.
Eurícide Cabañes
(ArsGames)
Bibliography
Cabañes, E. (2021) "Ciudades jugables: construcción
ciudadana a través del juego" en Velazquez, H. (Ed.),
Sociedad Tecnológica y Futuro Humano, vol. 3: Retos
sociales y tecnología, Tirant Le Blanch. (en prensa).
Preprint disponible aquí:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343236469_
Ciudades_jugables_construccion_ciudadana_a_traves_
del_juego_1
Gerber, A., y Götz, U. (Eds.). (2020). Architectonics of
Game Spaces: The Spatial Logic of the Virtual and Its
Meaning for the Real (Vol. 50). transcript Verlag. Pág. 275.
Traducción propia.
zens who make collective decisions on their data
and how to manage it as well as on their algori-
thms, interacting in a playful way with both in
order to make consensual decisions. This would
be possible through open-access software vi-
deo games that work with open data and human
computing in public infrastructure that supports
the entire system.
Experimenting with video games that work with
real data will allow us to test measures prior to
applying them, encourage citizen participation
in political management in an informed and cons-
cious way, resolve conicts and reach solutions
that are compatible between different points of
view. According to Tan (2014), "urban design, po-
licy and action plans generated collaboratively
through games will increase social coherence
and local agency, as well as reduce costs and
time in urban development processes".
In short, game-based governance would mean
placing technologies at the service of citizens,
and not the other way around.
While this idea hasn't yet been 100% implemen-
ted, we can nd pilot experiences in places as
diverse as Boston, Bangalore, Cape Town, Istan-
bul, Nairobi, Moscow, Shenzhen and Sydney, wor-
king on specic issues such as climate change,
migration ows, management of public spaces
and the circular economy, among others. As sta-
ted in the Games for Cities3 platform that collects
information on these experiences, these types
of practices "are already giving way to a practi-
ce of creating cities that is deeply rooted in the
collective experience, creativity and intelligence
of increasingly diverse groups of people. This will
be crucial for building sustainable urban futures".
3 http://gamesforcities.com/
Hamilton, M. (2019). The sexist algorithm. Behavioral
sciences & the law, 37(2), 145-157.
Haraway, D. J. (2004). Testigo_Modesto@ Segundo_
Milenio. HombreHembra© _Conoce_Oncoratón®.
Feminismo y tecnociencia. Editorial UOC.
Jiménez, M. (2019) Amazon invertirá 2.500 millones en
construir tres centros de datos en Aragón. El País.
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2019/10/31/
companias/1572547582_437528.html
Keenan (2017), Tecnosiniestro, EDUBEBA, Buenos Aires.
Tan, E. (2014). Negotiation and design for the self-
organizing city: Gaming as a method for urban design. TU
Delft. Pág 13.
Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C.
(2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| when the
algorithm itself is a racist: Diagnosing ethical harm in the
basic components of software. International Journal of
Communication, 10, 19.
Selwyn, N. (2015). Data entry: towards the critical study
of digital data and education. Learning, Media and
Technology, 40(1), 64-82.
Singer, N. y Wakabayashi, D. (2020) New Mexico Sues
Google Over Children’s Privacy Violations. Recuperado de
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/technology/new-
mexico-google-lawsuit.html
X-net (2019) No rméis la autorización para utilizar
Google Suite en las escuelas. Recuperado de https://
xnet-x.net/no-autorizar-google-suite-escuelas/