Update: Over at world-information.net is the full video documentation of the event. Well worth the time.

Taussig, II

Vortrag von Felix Stalder,
Jubiläum, 25 Jahre Datenschutzgesetz,
ZH, 28.01.2020

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

Mich begleitet das Problem der Privatsphäre unter den Bedingungen der Digitalität schon fast so lange, wie wie es das Datenschutzgesetzes des Kantons Zürich gibt. Die Jahrtausendwende verbrachte ich als PhD Student in Toronto, und arbeitete danach als Postdoc am Surveillance Studies Centre, ebenfalls im Kanada. Damals beschäftigten uns drei grosse Themen: Die feinmaschige Überwachung des öffentlichen Raums durch Videokameras; die nach den Anschlägen auf das World Trade Center in New York geplante Einrichtung einer nationalen Identifizierungskarte zur konsistenten Identifizierung der Menschen im Landesinneren; und, drittens, die detaillierten Profile, die Unternehmen anlegten, sowohl über ihre Kunden als auch über die Bevölkerung als ganzes, immer im dem Ziel, ihre Angebote möglichst so auszurichten, dass unterschiedliche Personen unterschiedlich behandelt werden konnten. Für einige verbesserten sich die Angebote, für andere wurden sie schlechter. Damals hiess das “customer relationship management”, heute nennt man das “Personalisierung”.

Das Internet und Mobiltelefone spielten noch eine untergeordnete Rolle, weil die Internetinfrastruktur noch nicht auf Datensammlungen hin gebaut war, ganz im Gegenteil, Internet Kommunikation erschien noch als weitgehend anonym und digitale Identitäten frei konstruierbar und die Telefone, na ja, die waren noch von Nokia.

"Welchen Einfluss hat die Digitalisierung auf die Solidarität? Die Stiftung Sanitas Krankenversicherung stellt Studien vor und bietet Experten und Think Tanks eine Plattform für Diskussionsbeiträge."

Mein Beitrag, ein Interview, beschreibt wie durch die Digitalisierung eine neue Infrastruktur für soziale Prozesse geschaffen wurde und welche Potentiale für neue Formen der Solidarität vorhanden sind.

October 17-19, 2019. Kunsthalle Wien Karlsplatz. PROGRAM ➔ ABSTRACTS ➔

21 September – 12 October 2019
panke.gallery, Berlin

This exhibition brings together 16 practices through which artists articulate their own forms of (digital) commons. From online archives, to digital tools/infrastructure and educational formats, the projects envision a (post-)digital culture in which notions of collaboration, free access to knowledge, sustainable use of shared resources and data privacy are central.

For the exhibition, artists have developed a SCORE relating to their practice. A SCORE can have different meanings: It can be a general instruction, a working instruction, a performance instruction or an operating instruction. In any case, it is meant to lead to a realization of an intended action and as such is an interface between a human actor and an object/material/machine. And a SCORE can also be linked to a technical HOWTO document, in that it contains information on how to perform a specific task.

This is my contribution to the catalogue for the exhibition "Entangled Realities – Living with Artificial Intelligence" showing at HEK, Basel 09.05.2019 - 11.08.2019.

In day-to-day life, most technologies are black boxes to me.¹ I don’t really know how they work, yet I have a reliable sense of the relationship between the input, say pressing a button, and the output, the elevator arriving. What happens in between, whether simple local circuitry or a far-away data centre is involved, I don’t know and I don’t care. Treating complex systems as black boxes is a way of reducing complexity and this is often a very sensible thing to do. However, not all black boxes are equally black, and the depth of the blackness matters quite significantly, not the least in terms of the power relations produced through the technology. The application of artificial intelligence has a tendency to produce particularly dark shades of black. In order to find ways to deal with these applications so that they do not undermine democracy, it is important to differentiate between technical and social shades to avoid that these applications contribute further to an already high concentration of power in the hands of a few technology firms. Art, with its unique ability to create new aesthetics, languages and imaginations, can play an important role in this battle. Jenna Sutela, nimiia cétiï, 2018

Beautiful and open accessAbstract: One of the consequences of digitization is a deepening crisis of epistemology, caused by the proliferation of social, biological and machinic actors that overwhelm established methods of generating and organizing knowledge. Machine-driven analysis of large data sets is introducing a new way of doing science. In this, it is answering to this crisis while, at the same time, deepening it. Continuing to claim ‘scientific objectivity’ is becoming ever more impossible and in practice is likely to serve as a way to abdicate responsibility for the actual research and its consequences. Rather, we should seek to highlight the positionality and partiality of any claim, also and in particular in data science, thus rendering more obvious the need to combine competing claims into an understanding of the world that is not so much inter- but rather multi-subjective.

Keywords: epistemology, digitality, data science, reproducibility crisis, multi-subjectivity

One of the consequences of digitization is a deepening crisis of epistemology, caused by the proliferation of social, biological and machinic actors that overwhelm established methods of generating and organizing knowledge (Stalder 2018). And, since there is a close relationship between epistemology and politics, between ways of knowing and ways of managing the world, we are also in a deep political crisis. This manifest itself not the least in a populist rejection of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ (Manjoo 2008). This crisis of the established – let’s call it modern-liberal – epistemic-political order has created a space for the establishment of a new one, which doesn’t yet have a name, even if its outlines are already visible.

This is an edited version of a presentation given at the “TCS Philosophy & Literature Conference 2019” (29 May – 2 June 2019) as part of a panel called “Creating Commons”, with Jeremy Gilbert and Tiziana Terranova. At this panel, my task was to present our research project Creating Commons.

15 years ago, Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook, then still called thefacebook, as a network for students at Harvard University. Today, almost 2.7 billion people use its services. And for 15 years he has been stressing like a prayer wheel that "connecting" and "sharing" make the world a better place and that Facebook stands for the epochal transition from oppressive hierarchical bureaucracies to liberating horizontal networks.

Today, he's pretty much on his own with that statement. On the one hand, Facebook Inc. has grown into an overpowering, opaque company that has incorporated 72 companies to date, including Instagram (2012), WhatsApp (2014), and virtual reality developer Oculus VR (2014). Moreover, the ownership structure is such that Zuckerberg can exercise almost unlimited power. On the other hand, Facebook is accused of facilitating the dissemination of false or manipulative information and thus contributing to the division of societies and the intensification of conflicts, for example in Great Britain, Sri Lanka, the USA, and Myanmar.

How could a harmless idea - people should be able to communicate easily and quickly with their friends and acquaintances - unfold such a destructive force? The answer is less to be found in the idea of horizontal communication itself or in digital media in general, but in the specific way Facebook implements this idea.