Silicon Dreams

(This was originally released as Implausipod Episode 26, on February 4, 2024)

https://www.implausipod.com/1935232/episodes/14428351-implausipod-e0026-silicon-dreams

Silicon Dreams are those glittering visions of mythic intensity that inspire the continued development of revolutionary technologies. Listen to this episode of the Implausipod to learn more about where they come from, and how the mythic imagination has been behind the development of virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and other tech innovations.


When Neuromancer appeared, it was picked up and devoured by hundreds, then thousands, of men and women who worked in or around the garages and cubicles, where what is still called new media were, fitfully, being birthed. Thousands who, on reading his description of cyberspace, thought to themselves, That’s so freaking cool!

And set about searching for any way the gold of imagination might be transmuted into silicon reality. End quote. This is by Jack Womack in the 2004 introduction to the 20th anniversary version of Neuromancer. And this episode of The Implausipod is about those silicon dreams.

Welcome to The Implausipod, a podcast about the intersection of art, technology, and popular culture. I’m your host, Dr. Implausible. And as we ease into 2024, we seem to be living at that intersection, as the technologies of sci fi past are being shown off every week, with new products and instruments of echanger like automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence being brought to market, and older technologies like 3D printing and drones being so commonplace that you can find them at a Costco or Target.

But this process isn’t anything new. It’s been happening for at least 35 or 40 years. And when I first began researching it, almost 20 years ago, back in 2005, I had a hunch that I might be onto something, but reality is far outpaced even my wildest imagination. And that imagination is what this episode is about, the mythic imagination that inspires the development of new technologies, whether it comes from science fiction or fantasy or other sources as well. 

So for this episode, I’ll take you back to that initial hunch and how it led me to track down the sources of those myths and what impact they had on the creation of the digital sublime and how that has impacted our current reality as well.

And with the incipient release of the Apple Vision Pro, their forthcoming AR VR headset, or whatever their marketing department is describing it as, this hunch couldn’t be more timely because my early work was on the development of virtual reality. 

Now, the hunch came about reading something else unrelated.

It was Ray Kurzweil’s work on the singularity that came out in the early 2000s. And I noted how much the work was influenced by or influenced upon, basically co creative, of the works of science fiction that were coming up in those prior 20 years. And it seemed to me that there had to be a lot of overlap between science fiction and science and the development of these new technologies.

But at the time, the literature wasn’t there yet. There was a few authors that had worked on it, notably William Bainbridge, who took a look at the early influences on the development of the space program in his 1976 book, The Spaceflight Revolution. Now, this was a sociological review of it. So he was looking at science and engineering at NASA and elsewhere through that sociological lens.

And in so doing, you noted how a revolutionary technology, like spaceflight, came around mostly theoretically before it was even attempted practically. And that theoretical drive was often influenced by, you know, the visions. In this case, we’ll go back to the mythic visions, that can be influenced by, in this case, fiction.

I mean, visionaries had long thought about traveling to the moon long before science fiction was even a genre, for everything with Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon from 1865 all the way up to Georges Méliès A Trip to the Moon, the 1902 short film with the bullet in the eye that we all probably famously remember.

So the idea was definitely there, but the technology wasn’t ready and the science wasn’t necessarily sure either. So this is what all made it a revolutionary idea in what we might call Kuhnian terms. They needed a goal, a target, a vision of what to work towards collectively across different countries and different cultures and different political systems.

They were all still kind of building towards this shared collective vision of getting to the moon in this case as the objective. And this holds true for other technologies as well. In the 40 year retrospective on the original publication of his work titled The Spaceflight Revolution Revisited, Bainbridge notes that we’re seeing something similar with the development of the singularity, referencing Kurzweil explicitly, and that that drew from influences going back to the 50s with Arthur C. Clarke’s novel The City and the Stars. 

And we can see that thread connecting all the way through to 2023 with the developments of ChatGPT and OpenAI. So, a 70 year development timeframe from inception to manifestation to when something actually comes about and is brought forth into reality. And did we see similar timeframes with the development of rocketry from inception to landing on the moon?

Yeah. And are we seeing similar lengths with even current technologies like, again, VR or direct neural implants with Neuralink recently being in the news? And again, the answer is yes, anywhere from 40, 50, 60 years from inception to something being made manifest in the world. Now, there can be reasons for this.

Often, it can be tricky, but what drives that development over that long of a time frame? What keeps us going towards the realization of those dreams of something that will necessarily outlive those originally imagined it? And perhaps several other generations following, but still working towards that idea, that realization.

And the answer is a cultural one. This is where the role of myth comes in.

When we hear the word myth, particular associations often come to mind. We can think of mythic heroes from ages of legend, like Heracles and Thor, Zeus and Odin, and the modern retellings of those, whether they’re showing up as superheroes in Marvel and DC movies, or cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny being a stand in for Anansi or Coyote.

In fact, comic book literature as a whole is filled with the retelling of myths and legends, but also we can see it in our political discourse as well, with myths about the foundation of a country, like those in the United States, with the myth of the Promised Land, or the Founding Fathers, or Pocahontas, or any of a number of other things.

Usually you can tell by whether they’ve shown up in a Disney movie or something. And I’m not harshing specifically on Disney here, at least not for this. The idea is that these myths are the tales that we share, that we share collectively. They’re part of our common cultural understanding. And we’re gonna call this, for lack of a better term, the mythic dimension.

And this is where some of our ideas come from. And these can be ideas about how we shape our culture, how our political system is supposed to work. We’ve talked previously about the social imaginary, way back in episode 9, and this kind of continues on with that thread, or streams, we’ll kind of start changing our metaphor mid stream, for reasons to be explained next episode.

But the point being is that our innovations come from new ideas, whether that’s social innovations, political innovations, cultural, and technological, and when it’s technological innovations, they often come from elements of culture that deal with technology. In this case, science fiction. Now, that isn’t the only source and only pathway for new ideas, of course.

As Henry Petroski has mentioned, human wants have long outpaced human needs as a driver of new inventions. But when we’re talking about revolutionary ideas, radical innovations, stuff that’s new to the world, then it can be one of those primary sources. And as stated, it’s one of those things that can kind of keep the vision and drive going from generation to generation to generation.

And as an expression of our culture, literature has an important role in maintaining this drive. And in the 20th and 21st centuries, we’ve had an explosion of other cultural artifacts like film, television, photography, gaming, and the rest, and these all have a role too, but literature is going to be our primary focus.

And the role that literature takes is that of an exemplar. It points forward towards a daring imaginative goal that may not be achievable, but at least gives those who may be in a position to enact change something to aim for. As Northrop Frye notes, “the written word recreates the past in the present and gives us not the familiar remembered thing, but the glittering intensity of the summoned up hallucination.”

This is from 1981. And it’s in this role that fiction finds itself as a part of literature, as a creator of the prophecies that contradict the conventional wisdom. It allows us to take all these opportunities and use them to drive towards the future. And building on what Northrop Frye said, the Canadian author John Ralston Saul elaborates, he says: “Fiction often reveals to us a greater understanding of our own society as it functions today.”

In other words, great fiction can be true for its time, as well as somehow timeless and true for our time. So this is the role that fiction plays, providing a goal, something timeless and transcendent and intense, something that we can work towards as if it was a dream. And this is what brings us to the development of these new and emerging technologies.

And I do want to stress that we’re looking at multiple technologies here. It isn’t restricted to just one thing. As Canadian academic Vincent Mosco pointed out in his book The Digital Sublime, there’s been similar cycles of mythic inspiration for previous radical technologies like the telegraph, electricity, radio, and television.

And as we noted in our Postcard from Earth episode, this can apply to cinema as well, what Andre Bazin was talking about with regard to the myth of total cinema. What these all link back to is what Perry Miller calls the idea of a technological sublime. An American historian of technology, David E. Nye, goes further into the exploration of this in his own work.

What the technological sublime is is that mythic feeling that we feel when we encounter new technology, the one that strikes right through to our emotions. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be anything electronic, it can be something like witnessing the Hoover Dam, or the first experience of air travel.

But honestly, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, and light switches can all conjure that experience as well, especially if you’ve never experienced it before. To return to Arthur C. Clarke, who we mentioned earlier, that old adage that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic holds true, and this is how we have to understand the enduring appeal and pursuit in development of a new technology, VR.

As the Apple Vision Pro launches, there’s no killer app for it. The business case for it is limited and tenuous at best. The use seems forced, often within the Apple ecosystem, and we don’t know what the enduring appeal of it is. Now, it may be that its time has finally come, with other developers like Meta and Valve both producing products within that market.

And this may create enough interest in it for not just a standard to emerge, but also user demand to match up with the available supply. And this is largely the challenge, to make reality match our dreams. Now, the myths of VR largely come from science fiction within the 70s and 80s, so there was contemporaneous development within the technological sphere as well.

Now, there are authors who have gone into great depths about the history of VR, circa 1990. I’d refer the audience to both Howard Rheingold’s Virtual Reality and Michael Heim’s The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality from 91 and 93, respectively. But when it comes to cultural representations, there have been versions of virtual reality going back for decades.

In 1973, there was a short film version of the Ray Bradbury short story The Veldt. which was originally written in 1950. It was marketed as educational programming, and so the contents of that were burned into my brain when it was shown at school. It took my little eight year old brain a little while to understand what those lines were eating in the final frames of that one.

And you can follow a stream through from that one to their first appearance at the Holodeck on Star Trek The Next Generation in 1988, and then every subsequent appearance thereof. And somewhere in between we had the original Tron from Disney. But the visual representations were few and far between. The main source of representations of virtual reality was science fiction.

While we had early versions of computer use, like John Brunner’s Shockwave Rider from 1975, which would still be recognizable to a modern audience, but with its gated communities, urban decay, and computer viruses and identity theft, the first major representation of virtual would be Vernor Vinge’s True Names from 1981.

Now, both Shockwave Rider and True Names had something in common, that they were gobbled up by the people working in computer engineering at the time. Whether it was on campus or within specific firms, the reports are that both those titles were ones that were held in high regard by computing enthusiasts in the 70s and early part of the 80s.

As Katie Hafner and Michael Lyon note in their book Where the Wizards Stay Up Late, “Bruner became a cult figure as the book swept through the worldwide community of science fiction readers. It had a strong influence on an emerging American computer underground, a loose affiliation of phone freaks, computer hackers in places like Silicon Valley and Cambridge, who appeared simultaneously with the development of the personal computer.”

And six years later, this was still going on when True Names was published. As James Frenkel notes, quote, “When True Names was written, it was considered visionary, and was read by some of those who have had a great deal to do with shaping the internet to date.” And while I admit that his mention is problematic now, writing in the afterword to True Names, Marvin Minsky, the co founder of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Lab, writes, and I quote, 

“In real life, You often have to deal with things you don’t completely understand. You drive a car, not knowing how its engine works. You ride as passenger in someone else’s car, not knowing how that driver works. And strangest of all, you sometimes drive yourself to work, not knowing how you work yourself. To me, the import of True Names, that it is about how we cope with things we don’t understand.

But, how do we ever understand anything in the first place? Almost always, I think, by using analogies in one way or another, to pretend that each alien thing we see resembles something we already know.” end quote. 

So it’s here in the early 80s where computer scientists and developers are being influenced by the science fiction texts, and you’ll note that I’ve hardly even mentioned the words cyberpunk or cyberspace up to this point in time.

We’ve covered cyberpunk in depth way back in episode 3, and honestly, we will continue to do so in the future. But the influences for the current implementations of virtual reality, which mostly draw from Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, whether it’s Meta’ slash Facebook’s pursuit of creating the metaverse, or whether it’s Apple Vision Pro Wearer’s inadvertently becoming the gargoyles from Snow Crash, conducting OSINT at every opportunity, whether inadvertently or not.

But the point is that these ideas of how virtual reality might be achieved, what it would look like, and how it would be incorporated into our daily lives, were prevalent long before the development of the tech actually enabled its use on a regular basis. The vision of the technology of what it could be is what drove the development and subsequent adoption as the users could see themselves incorporating those technologies into their own lives in ways similar to what they saw within the books.

The reason why is that those ideas sparked the mythic imagination as we noted earlier. As Mosco mentions, philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre concludes that “myths are neither true nor false but living or dead”, and the myths of virtual reality are still very much alive. All the attempts to bring them about in the real world, and the unsuccessful attempts at that, haven’t managed to kill the myth or kill the dream.

To quote Mosco a little bit further here: “A myth is alive if it continues to give meaning to human life, if it continues to represent some important part of the collective mentality of a given age, and if it continues to render socially and intellectually tolerable what would otherwise be experienced as incoherence.

To understand a myth involves more than proving it to be false. It means Figuring out why the myth exists, why it is so important to people, what it means, and what it tells us about people’s hopes and dreams.” 

So what does it mean if we’re continually pursuing these dreams of being someplace else, not on this earth, of having different jobs, of having different lives, having a different society that we live in?

And what does it mean when those dreams are pursued by the very richest among us? For those who, to quote a James Bond film would say “the world is not enough”, we can understand what the silicon dreams might mean to the average citizen, the regular users, or even to the developers to bring about something “freaking cool”.

But what does it mean to the technocrats and the industrialists and the billionaires? Why are they so dogged in their pursuit of something that has no killer app? Stick with us as we dig deeper into this in future episodes of The Implausipod.

Thank you for joining us once again here on the Implausipod. I’ve been your host, Dr. Implausible. You can reach me at drimplausible at implausipod. com for any questions, comments, or concerns. The show is licensed under a Creative Commons 4. 0 share alike license. All research, writing, editing, mixing, and music is done by me, Dr.

Implausible. Join us soon for The Old Man and the River, as we’ll look further at the impacts of pop culture on the development of technology. And then I think we’ll be returning back to Appendix W for a couple episodes before the release of Dune II. I hope you join us for that. Stay tuned, take care, and have fun.

Bibliography:
Bainbridge, W. S. (1983). The Space Flight Revolution: A Sociological Study.

Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). The Spaceflight Revolution Revisited. In Stephen Garber (Ed.), Looking Backward, Looking Forward: Forty Year of U.S. Human Spacelight Symposium. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. http://mysite.verizon.net/wsbainbridge/dl/spacerevisit.htm

Brunner, J. (1975). The Shockwave Rider. Harper and Row.

Frenkel, J. (Ed.). (2001). True Names and the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier. TOR.

Frye, N., & Lee, A. A. (2007). The great code: The Bible and literature. Penguin Canada.

Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where Wizards Stay up late: The Origins of the Internet. Simon and Schuster.

Mosco, V. (2005). The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace (1 edition). The MIT Press.

Ray Bradbury (Director). (1973, September 16). The Veldt. http://archive.org/details/the-veldt

Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual Reality. Summit Books.

Saul, J. R. (2005). On Equilibrium. Penguin Canada.

Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow Crash. Bantam Books.

Vinge, V. (1981). True Names. Bluebird.

Womack, J. (2004). Some Dark Holler (pp. 355–371). Ace Books.

Implausipod EP009: Recursive Publics and Social Media

Introduction

What are “recursive publics” and “social imaginaries”, how have they impacted the development of the modern internet, and what impact do they have on the state of the internet in 2023 with the implosion of Twitter, Reddit, and the rise of the Fediverse? Stay tuned as we take a 50000 foot view of the rise of the public sphere of geeks.

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1935232/episodes/13329924#

Transcript

 Welcome to the Implausipod, a podcast about the intersection of art, technology, and popular culture. I’m your host, Dr. Implausible, and today we’re gonna follow on from our last episode and stay in the social media sphere and look at the idea of a recursive public, a form of a social imaginary, and see how they’ve impacted the development of the modern internet.

What is a recursive public? Well, if you’re using the internet and if you’re seeing or hearing this, I’m gonna guess you are, you’re impacted by one because recursive publics are the driving force behind a lot of the tools of the internet. And they’re also now driving the future of social media through the ActivityPub protocol.

And I’m also gonna hazard a guess that you’d never even heard of them before, even though the idea has been around for nearly 20 years. So let’s get into it: let’s find out how geeks build communities online and what that means for the future of the internet. Now, when we last spoke, Threads had just come out, Twitter was still called Twitter, and we were worried about Facebook possibly engaging in something called EEE with respect to ActivityPub. Since then, Threads has cut its user base in half, Twitter’s now called X, and Google’s the one engaged in EEE with respect to something called W E I or Web Environment Integrity, which will be D R M on all chromium browsers.

So, we might need to have a look at that sometime in the future, but like Ferris Bueller said: “life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” But that was back in the eighties and life was moving way faster now in the 21st century. So let’s try and get caught up a little bit.

While the goal is to be weekly with this, there’s some challenges with that, so I’ll just work on improving my workflow and iterating through a process of, uh, additive manufacturing, so to speak, and getting better over time. We’ll increase the frequency as things improve, but that brings us back to the topic at hand because that idea of improving through iteration is core to what the recursive public is.

What exactly is it? Well, as Christopher Kelty explained in 2005, a recursive public is a group, or rather a particular form of social imaginary through which this group develops the means of their own association and the material form that this imagination takes the technical and legal conditions required for their association.

So, in other words, it’s a bunch of geeks that get together and say: “Hey, how can we use the internet to talk?” and developed tools and processes by which they can get together and talk. It’s a little circular, and those tools can be things like, you know, a chat room or email, but they can also be the underlying tools like the operating system, Linux or something for sharing things like Napster, and those are the things that Kelty was originally looking at, and that kind of makes sense.

But wait a second. You’re asking. What’s a social imaginary? Well, we’re at the risk of defining things by using other things. So, um, let’s drill down a little bit and see if we can get to a base level of understanding. Social imaginaries are ways in which people imagine their social existence and how they fit together with others.

How things go on between them and their fellows, and the expectations that are normally met. And the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations. Now, that’s a direct quote from Charles Taylor in 2004 who described them as meta topical spaces or topical spaces. The place where a conversation takes place, and not just conversation, but also pre 20th century also where like rituals and practices and assembly takes place.

And as I’m talking here, I realize I need to put a pin in that idea of “where a conversation takes place”, and we’ll circle back to that in a little while. But we’re defining things with other things again. So, topical spaces, if that’s where the conversation’s taking place, then who’s having that conversation?

Well, a public. Not the public mind you, just a public, that’s having that conversation. So I think we’re getting somewhere. If we have multiple conversations taking place, then that must be happening in the public sphere and that is where the public is. And when we’re looking at the difference between these publics, we’re looking at the work of Michael Warner who talked about Publics and Counter-publics in 2002.

The public is the social totality. It is, in other words, the social imaginary and that differs from a specific instantiation, which would be a public. Publics are happening all the time. They form, they’re swirling together, they achieve a specific mass and through discursive address, and performed attention in quotes, guilty before dissipating, and either achieving critical mass to become a movement or, you know, drifting off into the either.

So a discussion would be a topical public and a public constituted through the imagined participation in a discussion is a meta topical public, and all of these together, that social totality, they’re engaging in the public’s sphere or this is where the public sphere happens, and if we’re situating those within the public sphere, then that brings us all the way back to Habermas.

Wonderful. I think I’ve managed to make this as clear as mud. Fantastic.

Let’s diagram this out a little bit and see if we can make some sense of all this. Whenever you have a group of people involved in a discussion that creates a topical public, it doesn’t matter whether it’s face-to-face or through the media or online, it’s a public. That’s it. That’s the minimum. We need a public that’s constituted through the imagined participation in that discussion. So that includes the audience basically is a meta topical public, and you can have multiple of those together to create that public.

Each of these discussions amongst the publics occurs in a particular topical space. So if it’s online, we could think of these as like subreddits or discussion forums or ABNs or what have you. And then if you have multiple of those together, it would be a meta topical space. This would be like the platform itself, whether it’s Twitter, Sorry, X, Reddit, Facebook, TikTok. These are what Taylor calls “non-local common spaces”.  And again, that’s particular to the internet, but it happens in broadcast and other media as well. And then if you have a particular group, which can. Change the place of the means of their association. That is a recursive public. And so that’s like your geeks in Linux or what’s happening right now with Mastodon, ActivityPub and the Fediverse in general.

And that was the big change: the way a recursive public, one that’s on the internet, can actually make changes to the way they get together and communicate. You see, those meta topical common spaces had already existed long before the internet, prior to the 18th century. We called them things like the Church and the State.  But in the 18th century, we had the idea of this new social imaginary that showed up. That would become, what was the public sphere? It was the coffee house society. It was the discussion that would take place within the newspapers, the letters to the editor within the salons. So all this happened well before the internet.

What these spaces are is they’re, they bring about by like a common understanding that like, this is how we talk, this is where things take place and this is how we can discuss things. And this public sphere is made up by, it’s like an extra political space, right? It’s not brought about by any legislation or political maneuver, the government or the church, but through the practices and the media of that society, through the way they’re able to communicate with each other, and it’s a self-organizing space through the conversations that are taking place.

One of the things that made it really powerful was that it was seen as apolitical or extra political that it took place away from the discussions of power and had a place that was seen outside of that. Because it’s outside of that power, it has power. Which is kind of weird, I know, but it’s like why you’ll see politicians engage on Twitter or TikTok and try and be trendy just because they need to court the power that’s there in the public sphere.

It’s also why you’ll see like authoritarian states try and fake the existence of a public sphere by having news media or what have you. That gives the appearance that there’s a discussion going on. And there’s amazing scholars that have done work on like, the role of media in Eastern Bloc countries and the like, and how that, you know, legitimizes that power.

But that’s way outside of our point of discussion. The main point is that these social imaginaries, these ways that the public imagines society to be, have existed for a long time. And while it’s classically been defined by the activities like speaking and writing and thinking and having that discussion, we now need to change that a little bit in the internet era and include things like building and coding and compiling and redistributing and sharing and hacking.

And this is what Kelty is arguing, is that this “argument by technology” can create a new way of building a public space, a recursive public. You can contrast this with like a non recursive public, which would be like a newspaper or a political gathering. There’s the organizers or the people who write or publish the newspapers, and occasionally there’s like a letter to an editor or they’ll have somebody get up, but by and large, they’re locked into way that it allows them to engage with the public in the first place.

A recursive public allows for the feedback and for that public to remake the means of that gathering. In their own terms and their own terms include their shared common understanding, the way they imagine the world works. And how do they imagine the world works? How do they come up with the ideology that they share?

Well, myths and narratives and folklore. The shared fictions that they have pre-internet. This would be things like, uh, tall tales like Paul Bunyan or George Washington not being able to tell a lie. Those kinds of things. Anything that would be a fodder for like a Disney movie or TV show. Post internet, this can include things like, you know, the “net treats censorship as damage”, or “show me the code” or the idea of a singularity, or the ideas behind free and open-source software In the general, or even some of the underlying myths about cyberspace or the images and beliefs that go into like the identity of a hacker.

These are all elements that constitute the social imaginary of a recursive public, of a public on the internet. But there’s a twist. And the twist is social media. See, as I said, Kelty was writing in 2005 and he was talking about Napster and Linux, and he did some ethnographic field work with groups that are engaged in that, you know, in different parts of the world.

But, Since 2005, there’s been some changes to how the internet works, so let me read off some names and dates. Facebook, 2004. Reddit 2005, Snapchat, 2005. Twitter, 2006, Instagram 2010 GitHub 2008. YouTube 2005, TikTok or Douyin. 2012, and even the ones like Facebook that were before 2005, before Kelty was writing, were much smaller then.

So when Kelty was writing the internet was a radically different place than it is now in 2023, we’ve had the rise of these platforms, these. Social networks, but within walled gardens that all seek to recreate the public sphere. Having learned some of the lessons from the dot.com boom and bust, and from AOL and the other crashes, you could call them all medic topical spaces because they allow for multiple discussions and in their totality make up a public sphere.

Not “the” public sphere because the old public sphere is still there and they still interact with the online one as well, and none of them on their own make up the public sphere are constituted of it, even though just by dint of size, Facebook probably comes close. And it’s within this framework that Elon Musk with his purchase and subsequent rebranding of Twitter tried to buy into and Twitter’s role within it, even though it was smaller than most of the others, was the extent that it was legitimized, because that’s where journalists and academics and politicians would go to have those discussions.

That was where the conversation was taking place. But in 2023, that place has shifted, and this has been going on for a while. In the mid 20 teens, the geeks were chafing at the various restrictions, digital rights management and other, uh, issues with the various walled gardens and platforms. And because the geeks constituted a recursive public, they set about creating their own version of these walled platforms, of these social networks, one that fit their needs better.

They recognize the utility of those social networks and that they could be used for good, but they recognize that there’s also serious limitations with the way they’re constructed and the way they commoditize their audiences, as we discussed last time. So in 2018, the ActivityPub protocol was created and it became a standard upon which new applications and communication networks could be built.

Like a lot of these tools and especially the early Linux tools in the nineties, it’s been worked on part-time by a lot of volunteers, occasionally funded, and even though it’s been a little rough, it’s gotten better over time, over the intervening five years. So in late 2022 when Elon Musk purchased Twitter and in 2023, when Reddit and various other social networks started having massive problems, an alternative existed.

A new recursive public built by the geeks that mirrored some of the forms of the platforms of the previous 15 years of the social networking era. Different but familiar enough that it allowed for use. Thus, once again, the geeks have remade the internet, building a community that they can use, and we are moving.

Into the era of the FediVerse, but we’ll have to explore that in a future episode. For now, let’s wrap this up. I’m Dr. Implausible. It’s been a pleasure to join you. Transcripts should be available on the blog sometime soon, within a day or so, and we’ll also try and get a video version of the this up on the YouTubes.

The whole show is produced under Creative Commons 4.0 Share Alike license. Audio is by me, music is by me, and all the writing and stuff is too. No generative text or large language models have been employed in the production of this episode, and the world is moving pretty fast. So get out there and enjoy it.  Until next time, I’m Dr. Implausible. Have fun.

References:
Anderson, B. R. O. (1991 [2006]). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press.

Kelty, C. (2005). Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics. Cultural Anthropology,_20(2), 185–214. [https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2005.20.2.185](https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2005.20.2.185)

Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.

Warner, M. (2002) “Publics and Counterpublics”. Public Culture 14(1): 49-90.