https://conf.domainepublic.net/FAC
we're meeting in the Studio instead: https://bbb.constantvzw.org/b/mar-ztm-epn

- Can we try to clarify the continuum or differences between 'blocking' (Fediverse) and 'restricting access' (Does information really want to be free)? 
- How are access restrictions made by individuals different from restrictions decided upon by collectives, affiliates or accomplices? 
- What exactly are reasons for rethinking the 'non-discriminatory' clause in Free Culture, and what could be interesting reasons for holding on to it? 
- How does this link to Roel's proposal to: 'Set up structures that invite also unwanted participation.', or even to provide for un-imaginable forms/collectives of re-use? 
- ... and then to Eva: 'when do we speak of "using" and when of "appropriating"?' How to tell apart unwanted - participation from cultural appropriation? 
- I am also wondering about federated authorship vs federated ownership vs federated access vs federated affect. 

Why did they write the text?
Roel & Aymeric became interested in the latest iteration in social media (2016-2017), known as Fediverse and more, Mastodon.
Struck by how this extremely 'libre' space was populated by discourses & requirements from other cultural practises
Hand in hand with the relative popularity of Mastodon
Now 4 million accounts
If Fediverse could be the FLOSS social network
ideas around development became contested by alternative usership, not the capable programmer (as before)
 
as a specificly capable programmer?

Question: non-discrimination principle in free software & need to change it
has a specific politics, emphasized in the text by Kimberly Kristen
her text is critique on a platform she was involved in
2 texts are in relation to each other
the principle allows the use by people you might not like or not agree with > not discriminating use in advance
 
 open source - not discriminatory licence
 for different reasons: open for business, innovation, 
 
General Public License is seen as discriminatory becase they are less permissive
it is less beneficial for large corporations
that's why 'permmissive' licenses emerged
large companies will never release all their code with this license
 
definition of discriminatory is different for each of these strands
for the open source (Phd Aymeric), profileferation of free software licenses, everyone can use it unless you're the military or intelligence services
 
discussion on 'restriction' in the use of FLOSS licenses as radical feminist tool (in Constant)
idea of not restricting also had to do with not wanting to assume usership in advance, allow for use that you cannot imagine in advance
there are consequences to letting go of that principle

Connects to "public". 
public space demands for differences

what is being 'licensed'
Defining publicness as people you want to be with and/or who you want to share with
--> rethinking publicness

in Fediverse 'who do you want to be with' immediately becomes a question of license

Similar connections in text 'Information wants to be free'?
explicit social aspect to the Fediverse, while publishing your source code is not necessarily social
'who you want to share with are also the ones you want to be with' = problematic for Femke

Might be a political issue because of the exclusions... Own struggles to make space for critical practice.. ?
vs decolonial critique on openness having a violent history
Which knowledge is then openly circulated and shared? 

seeing need for codes of condcucts
taking violent histories serisuus :-)))


concern goes back to Donna Haraway: situated epistomology without giving up on 'hard truth'
ex. you should argue your feminist epistemology in relation to science without giving up idea of science

Timeline of Fediverse in relation to definition of freedom, who it is for?
problem of scale: notion of freedom needs to be (differently?) defined when you scale up

scaling because differentiation was possible
in beginning involvement of queer communities, came with needs/questions
Mastodon is fork of The New (:-) GNU Social) Social (very free and open speech, based on rss, very little access control)
queer developers needed different space, because this structure led quickly to situations of hurt
led to granular visibility and access control

agreeing on values became a preconditions for use
open access & licensing:
mixing of thinking about blocking access (Fediverse) and restricting access when it comes to circulation?
in the Fediverse blocking is used as access control, but based on misunderstanding
if one server blocks the other, this doesn't mean that the other server has no access to your content, you don't see the content on the other server


positional access control

came up as an issue with appropriation of knowledge, ref. fake news discrediting people of color
taking knowledge out of context (either to do other politics or to make money)
#YourSlipIsShowing
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-feminists-alt-right-twitter-gamergate.html

(speaking on behalf of)

Fediverse doesn't gard against this... people are working on changing underying federation protocols that would allow for better access control

situated knowledge vs not restricting access

Kimberley Kristen: access control is not an individual decision, object, writer producer... but already
is a federated decision
collective decisions are made about access
that risks a boundary practise that comes with many problems
how can these decisions not be just individual/collective, but federated
ex one community blocking others, but pushes the decision onto other communities they are federated with
can there be another strategy?

problem with open access policy?
assumption of openness at whatever cost
both texts question 'access for everyone all the time is good, restriction is bad'
problems with cultural appropriation, much information is already looted to begin with
different cultures in what can/should be shared
so F_S you mean that the federated architecture affects the way decisions are made collectively?

infrastructure conflicts with needs of communities
architecture obliges for specific ways of community online and collective decision making
friction - questions can be posed
one infrastructure is not definite 
open access also ignores historical imbalances in knowledge/skills/cultures/histories access

is fediverse negotiating publishing and private communication in a better way

undoing that history of openness is damaging
described by Kristen, how a lot of distinct things get conflated together in open access


conflating different ways of thinking about using posting. It is not always publishing. speaking to peers; means other conditions.
Angeliki: I am wondering how open access is an idea coming from communities that didn't have the need to be protected


How does this link to Roel's proposal to: 'Set up structures that invite also unwanted participation.', or even to provide for un-imaginable forms/collectives of re-use? 
Why would you do that? How would that be?

Overcare for context... how where things appear (MayDay) people feel sometimes proprietory about their stuff. Material becomes historical important. Communicating turns into publishing. Protest poster..for example: Haunting Rights.

control, fear; appropriation

histories of harassment
conflation of publishing - speaking to friends as (not) publishing

a given that unwanted participants will enter in these spaces, it is not that you need to invite them?


when do we speak of "using" and when of "appropriating"?' How to tell apart unwanted - participation from cultural appropriation?the ester salomon?

Intentions <> practice
http://cuadernosdedanza.com.ar/textosdanzacontemporanea/602/cultural-extractivism-is-the-subtraction-of-an-ancestral-knowledge-or-an-art-to-destroying-it?fbclid=IwAR3RzZs7Ml-yrwMNiLLP6RuBAzmjZtOgZwvVG6MbQMxsYhYmyPKZlWecu_0