Note: I regret that I will be unable to join you for a discussion on the 2^nd of October; please accept my apologies and allow me briefly to offer my thoughts on the reading I found most salient and compelling this week.

In Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, Sasha Costanza-Chock argues for widespread, large-scale changes in the realm of design, whether that design is digital or exists in the physical realm. Costanza-Chock presents what they call the “matrix of domination,” which disproportionately discriminates against those who are members of one or more marginalized communities.

Costanza-Chock offers several solutions for combating the matrix of domination and spends time examining past efforts at peaceful protests in the name of justice, particularly justice for groups who have been historically enslaved, imprisoned, killed, forced to relocate, disenfranchised, and discriminated against at all levels of society. They present a compelling argument about how to prevent our machines, algorithms, and new technologies from inheriting our biases, the biases of generations prior, and the legacy of settler-colonialism.

They give one example of how “a Black person might experience a microaggression if their hands do not trigger a hand soap dispenser that has been (almost certainly unintentionally) calibrated to work only, or better, with lighter skin tones” (p. 45) but the problem is much more widespread. Arguably, the example given is a minor, perhaps even daily inconvenience, but BIPOC individuals are discriminated against on much larger, high-stakes scales.

Banking algorithms are also biased against Black people and people of color. These biases are a result of the ‘black box’ of AI as well as the historical data that the algorithms are fed in order to make decisions about the riskiness of offering a loan or a mortgage to a given person. Historically, BIPOC individuals were less likely to get mortgages, and now AI has taken up the baton of that same settler-colonist, Jim Crow, discriminatory practices that prevent BIPOC people from building generational wealth.

Costanza-Chock reminds us that is important, when undertaking the task of designing any new system or redesigning an existing one, to consider those who are at a different location upon the matrix of domination than oneself. They argue that the technology, user experience, and design fields are dominated not only by men but also by white people. They cite that the overwhelming majority of tech workers are white men and that many are white women. BIPOC individuals make up only a smattering of tech workers, and women, BIPOC people, LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly trans folx, make up a small percentage of executive boards and are vastly outnumbered by white men.

There is an old Italian saying – “the fish rots from the head down.” When the very highest levels and the upper echelons of tech companies are made up of the same demographic, it is easy to overlook the needs of the many in favor of the needs of the privileged few.

The author posits that harm and benefit must be distributed equally throughout the population when one is (re)designing a new or existing product, space, service, etc., and that designers need to make deliberate decisions about how to distribute these harms and benefits to those at various locations on the matrix of domination.

I agree with many of their observations, and as an Artificial Intelligence Studies Major in university, I have long known about data bias and have been concerned about just what the author describes. I have also encountered new perspectives in this book and am grateful for the opportunity to have taken a dive into the world of design justice. We must build a future we can all be proud of; one where equity, equality, and justice for all are more than mere ideals to which we pay lip service – one where we can start to heal the scars wrought upon the world by the transatlantic slave trade, settler-colonialism, late-stage capitalism, and anthropogenic climate change.

It is important to design and build a future where all are welcomed and valued, at all levels of society; everywhere.

In The public and Its Problems Chapters 4 and 5, Dewey’s idea of the public is inextricably connected with ideas of community, communication, shared beliefs and symbols, and democracy. He states, however, that due to the globalizing effects of modern technology “there are too many publics and too much of public concern for our existing resources to cope with” and laments the fact that technology has expanded the scope of the public to an extent that it is too fragmented and no longer coherent and so, in effect, non-existent. He seems to believe that a significant level of commonality of thought and scientific education is required for a public to be “genuine and effective“ when he states that science “absorbed and distributed” could be “the instrumentality of that common understanding and thorough communication which is the precondition of the existence of a genuine and effective public” and thus without which, according to Dewey, there is no public.

I would argue, however, to alter or expand Dewey’s definition of the public in a few very salient ways. First of all, the public must include not just those who share a collective culture of ideas and knowledge based in science but also those who might have a shared interest in the common resource or other concern under consideration regardless of whether or not they share our culture, scientific knowledge, beliefs and values simply because the outcome affects them as well. Dewey recognizes the global consequences of so many of our actions today when he states, “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences” however he seems to fall short of acknowledging that shared interest alone is enough to conjoin us into a coherent public. Again, as Dewey himself pointed out we can no longer see ourselves as separate from others all across the globe when he states, “the consolidation of peoples in enclosed, nominally independent, national states has its counterpart in the fact that their acts affect groups and individuals in other states all over the world.” This consideration and inclusion of all those who will be impacted as well as those who disagree or do not share our collective culture is necessary in order to avoid what John Stuart Mill called the “tyranny of the majority” or a condition in which the political majority oppresses the political minority. A thriving culture needs diversity and dissenters in order to grow and change and make social progress. It is only through diversity and differences that a public can be self-reflective. So, to me, diversity of people, knowledge, ideas and opinions does not preclude the idea of a coherent, “genuine and effective” public.

Second, in my opinion the definition of the public should be expanded to encompass all life forms who share the common resource, not just humans, since, as modern ecology has proven repeatedly, all life is interdependent though a web of connections. When you remove one species from an ecosystem (or introduce a new one) it causes a whole cascade of often unforeseen downstream consequences that can and often are disastrous for the environment that all life depends on for our survival. So the interests of the whales, or the spotted owls, etc… should not and cannot be forgotten if we want to survive and thrive into the future. Admittedly, those other life forms cannot speak for themselves and represent their own interests, which is why a strong environmental ethic and advocacy movement is necessary to speak for them. This view is to me just an extension of the Confucian model as described in “Climate, Collective Action and Individual Ethical Obligations” by Marion Hourdequin when she states, “Confucian philosophy does not understand the individual as an isolated, rational actor. Instead, the Confucian self is defined relationally. Persons are constituted by and through their relations with others.”  In this case, I would argue those “others” should include other species as well as other human beings. 

Third I would say that we need to expand the definition of the public to include those not born yet, as in the tradition of some Native American cultures who weighed every decision with the impact it would have on their ancestors seven generations into the future. I realize that my definition is a very tall order and would require a major paradigm shift but, again, this is what is required according to the Confucian model as described by Hourdequin:

On the Confucian model, although coercion may keep people out of trouble, it cannot accomplish thoroughgoing social change, involving the transformation of minds as well as actions. Thus, reform achieved primarily through coercion will be both shallow and unstable. In order to solve a collective action problem, it is not just incentives for individually rational agents that need to change. Policy is not enough: what is also crucial is moral change in individuals. Changing institutions without changing people will not resolve tensions between the individual and the collective good.

Thus “the commons” is not in my opinion either “a tragedy, a solution, or a site for political and social contest”, it is a unavoidable consequence of our inherent interconnectedness that we need to start seeing as such if we want to overcome the challenges that face us in our modern technological world. We can no longer look at any natural resources as being anything but a common resource if we want to have anything left to leave to our children, our grandchildren, and the seventh generation. 

I define “the public” as a single indefinite entity of humans that can mingle with other publics in complicated structures hard to untangle; it is a confusing thing, as human relationships are often messy. For example, I, as one out of many, wrestle with identifying with the individualistic American culture of “You do you” and “make your voice heard” versus the collective Asian-American culture of saving face and filial piety for our elders, as well the various millions of nuanced voices on the Internet. While it appears that we have freedom with the concept that we can explore infinitely with a click of the mouse, our decisions and behaviors are influenced by the society’s unspoken rules and limits, which we have internalized. 

According to Online Etymology Dictionary (https://www.etymonline.com/word/public), the origin of the word public is extensive, from its first definition as ‘”open to general observation” from Old French  public (c. 1300) and directly from Latin publicus “of the people; of the state; done for the state,”’.

“The commons”, depending on a specific public’s perspective, is seen as a tragedy, a solution, or a site for political and social contest. For example, the public of the elite rich may view the commons as a solution to their problems. Because it has been so difficult to manage the commons as a result of the existence of a multitude of publics, along with the disparity of resources, they can exploit the underregulation by going through loopholes with their abundance of time and money. 

Personally, I view “the commons” as a tragedy and a site for political and social contest. I agree with Hardin’s point of view in which the world has a finite amount of resources, and the human nature of prioritizing one’s own survival will harm many. For example, we are complicit in allowing Amazon to keep developing their AI with AWS machine learning, but at the expense of the hidden laborers who are underpaid, their bodies susceptible to unsafe workplace conditions and chemicals.  

Within the CUNY Graduate Center itself, there are many different publics with their own interests in mind. When we walk around these halls, we see paper handouts calling for the reclamation of the Commons – regarding the student taking back of the 8th floor Dining Commons from current bureaucratic regulations set by Graduate Center President Robin Garrell and others. This is the epitome of the commons being the site for political and social clashing. 

I recently visited the MoMA and came across Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler’s Anatomy of an AI System, (https://anatomyof.ai/) a data visualization that exposes the components that make a single Amazon Echo smart speaker possible. Before seeing this project, I was unaware of how many unnamed people were being exploited to conveniently bring a speaker onto one’s doorstep/mailbox. Such a visualization is an example of bringing awareness into the public’s consciousness, which is an important first step that Public Interest Technology was/is/will be working through.  

In my eyes, the “public” can be defined by the usage of the idea of set theory, a foundational concept in mathematics. If we recollect everything of society as a regular set, individual communities or groups with shared hobbies, ideals, or traits can be viewed as subsets within this universal set. Much like elements in a set, every person belongs to a couple of subsets (or groups) and contributes to the identification of each. Intersections among these subsets constitute people or groups with overlapping traits or interests. Thus, defining the “public” in any given context corresponds to identifying a selected subset or aggregate of subsets inside the universal set. The “public” can be defined at various levels of this universal set whether at the level of smaller communities, nations, or one that attempts to encapsulate shared interests at the grand scale.

The tragedy of the commons often surfaces when members of the public are either detached or insufficiently engaged with communal issues. When we have subsets of our society, be they communities, entities, or even lone individuals, leveraging common resources without foreseeing the broader repercussions, what we witness is a “tragedy.” In mathematical terms, it’s reminiscent of isolated elements acting out of pure self-interest without accounting for their interconnectedness to other groups—resulting in the gradual exhaustion or decline of resources in our communal subset. (Note to self: explore the application of game theory in this concept).

On a brighter note, the commons have the potential to be our “solution.” Drawing on my understanding of Harney and Moten’s thoughts, we can develop the idea of a collective approach to disseminating resources and knowledge. In my eyes, this could be akin to building a fresh, intersectional subset, one that actively prioritizes the well-being of the overarching set. Such a synchronized endeavor could, I believe, transform the commons into a tool for innovation, mutual cooperation, and shared affluence.

Drawing upon Toomey and Sweeney’s insights, I’ve come to realize the double-edged nature of technology in this context. Technology has the power to either amplify the tragedy of the commons or usher in innovative solutions and platforms for debate. In today’s digital age, it’s fascinating to me how even virtual spaces have joined the ranks of the “commons.” How we navigate this novel realm will, I think, be instrumental in sculpting the trajectory of public interest.

Lastly, the commons often emerge as a battleground for political and social contest. We can observe that different factions (subsets) within the public (universal shared set), segregated perhaps by financial metrics, ideological beliefs, or other criteria, engage in a tug-of-war for dominance over our shared resources. This power play, from what I sense, often defines the rules governing our shared space, making it an indispensable facet of public participation.

To sum up, the “public” and the “commons” are complicated, overlapping, and dynamic, much like complex sets in mathematics. The commons may be a tragedy if improperly managed, a solution if well managed, and undoubtedly a place of social and political conflict.

“The public” is grass-roots community, through which collective survival and flourishing is accomplished, when we as individual people are able to balance our personal desires for thriving with an interest in prospering as a collective. In its very nature, the public is experimental, existing in a state of constant evolution rather than stable configuration.

I’m particularly drawn to Dewey’s interpretation of “the public” as “consist[ing] of all of those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for.”  In the age of rapidly evolving technology, “the public” continues to expand beyond the local as our digital lives intertwine and entrench the consequences of our actions on a potentially global scale. A single human being’s desires and interests are furthermore reflective of “the public” in increasingly subtle and elusive ways due to the overwhelming mass-production of connection and association to others in our technological age. Technology complicates our formulation and understanding of “the public” as the state of the world changes faster than we are able to envision new social contracts for how we treat others. Dewey notes that “American democratic polity was developed out of genuine community life, that is, association in local and small centers where industry was mainly agricultural and where production was carried on mainly with hang tools” – despite the historic origin of our local democratic model of self-governing government, industrialization has transformed our community life towards one of global breadth rather than local depth, with little changes to our formulations of what community could look and a lack of true acceptance that the world has evolved beyond what once was.

In “The Public and its Problems,” Dewey implicitly refers to the accountability carried out for matters concerning “the public.” I believe that accountability is a critical component of any public, representing a blend of personal and public desire to act with greater camaraderie, both for ourselves individually and for the community as a whole. Without trusted avenues for accountability, “the public” is destroyed through a disillusionment that others will also sacrifice their own personal interests for the collective good.

Although “the commons” has persisted as a tragedy, and at times served as a solution, I believe it exists as a site for political and social contest. In “The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study” by Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, the undercommons is described as a space of resistance, of questioning, of connecting with others communally and perpetually rebuilding visions for the world. I would like to live in a world where we are able to re-imagine “the commons” by recognizing and dismantling historical power structures that form it. There is no denying the oppressive forces employed in the war for resources in the name of protecting “the commons” – and tragedy as it is, it is through intentional accountability in political and social contest that we ensure that we learn and grow from past mistakes in reconceptualizing a more just world for us all.

“The public” refers to a collective that can be grouped based on size, separations in region or borders, and by which institutions represent them. One can be “public” to a particular area, but maybe not to another. And those in these collectives are not all equally affected by the actions of individuals in the collective, but affected none the less. Cooperation and interaction are needed for survival in these collectives. In the modern world, this idea of “the public” includes online and virtual spaces.  

Of equal concern to my definition is that it provides acknowledgement to those existing in “the public” and being excluded from it. Common groups to think about are marginalized communities along the lines of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. These are folks who are visibly in the public, but often not considered for a nuanced look at the question — “is this good for the public?” The notion of visibility and invisibly in “the public” extends beyond historically understood marginalization. “The public”, but also outside it: the poor, those limited in access to technology, those with disabilities or impairments, criminals, and may more. What role do visibility and invisibility play when discussing “the public”?  

“the public” shouldn’t separate who lives now and who will exist in the future. Those who follow inherit our resources (whatever is left) and the existing systems, such that they should be included in any discussion of “the public”.  

“the commons” is a tragedy, a solution, and a site for political and social contest. The tragedy and solution are linked in how my thoughts emerge on this topic. Fundamental difficulties in scaling the measures we know to work in maintaining commons rarely fit the needs of our modern world. They are applied in conditions with either private or public choices, inadequate regulations, and excessive reliance on technology, which can cause new problems. Dewey notes in The Public and Its Problems, “We have inherited, in short, local town-meeting practices and ideas. But we live and act and have our being in a continental national state.” (113) and “consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, and so as to generate constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities. Political and legal forms have only piece-meal and haltingly, with great lag, accommodated themselves to the industrial transformation. (114) This becomes more complex where resources are shared globally and, especially, where deciding on best practices is predicated on collective ability to understand the scale of an issue, detailed in Revisiting the Commons, “Management of these resources depends on the cooperation of appropriate international institutions and national, regional, and local institutions. Resources that are intrinsically difficult to measure or that require measurement with advanced technology, such as stocks of ocean fishes or petroleum reserves, are difficult to manage no matter what the scale of the resource.” ( Elinor Ostrom et al, 214).  

“the commons” as a site for political and social contest seems inextricably linked to ideals and actions proposed in The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study. “The coalition unites us in the recognition that we must change things or die. All of us.” (10). What “the commons” looks like without political and social contest? This is difficult to imagine for someone born in the US, in the modern times. We are watching in real time what failing to allow space for “radical” and uncomfortable discussion in public forums has done to the planet and our societies. Embracing messy and unconventional methods for tacking our problems is worth it. Understanding the Undercommons and perspectives like it help to envision commons that are less prone to tragedy.

Though it was written nearly a century ago, John Dewey’s The Public and Its Problems is a relevant piece of literature that aptly describes the relationship between technology, politics, and the public. Dewey notes that “indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences” (126). My interpretation of Dewey’s definition of the public is that a public exists anytime people have shared interests in cooperating because the consequences of not doing so would be large and experienced by all members of the public. The United States could be considered a public, under this definition, as we have a shared interest to work together to preserve the stability of our democracy. On a larger scale, the entire human population could be considered a public as we each have shared interests to avoid things like extreme climate change when the consequences would impact every one of us. 

The public can only thrive, Dewey argues, once converted to a Great Community. The Great Community takes the idea of the public and extends it beyond the incentive framework and into a space centered in human connection. To this point, Dewey says that “association itself is physical and organic, while communal life is moral, that is emotionally, intellectually, and consciously sustained” (151). Humans instinctively seek to form relationships with others, but community requires action and motivation to maintain harmony. 

This is a difficult task for societies because man is a selfish creature; and here is where we encounter the tragedy of the commons. Hardin’s tragedy of the commons is a theory that is twofold—on the one hand, when humans have a shared resource (e.g. the commons), they must constantly evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of taking for themselves and leaving some for others. On the other hand, individuals each play a part in making problems for the commons that everyone in the public must endure (e.g., pollution, waste, etc.). Hardin contends that there is no technical solution to the problem of the commons, and based on this week’s readings I would argue that the solution to the problem of the commons is community. Social ties, respect for each other, and respect for the commons is the foundation for overcoming the tragedy. Ostrom et al. supports this theory by stating that “although tragedies have undoubtedly occurred, it is also obvious that for thousands of years people have self-organized to manage common-pool resources, and users often do devise long-term, sustainable institutions for governing these resources” (213). 

The commons is at once a space for tragedy, a space for solution, and a space for political and social contest. As with all other human systems and phenomena, the public and the commons that exist around it is constantly in flux. Our needs, priorities, relationships, struggles, and ideologies will continue to change and how we navigate those changes is also continually in motion. This conclusion was heavily influenced by Harney & Moten’s The Undercommons.  Harney & Moten push us to challenge our understanding of the commons and how different classes of people are valued within that framework. The undercommons represents a revolution that does not recognize the commons as a defined space pre-determined and managed by colonizers.  The commons, they believe, should be upended as we know it to create a new society that is inclusive and beyond politics because politics aren’t necessary. People engage with governance and one another without the need for politics because they are one community above all else. To end this argument where we began, Dewey makes it clear that “‘we’ and ‘our’ exist only when the consequences of combined action are perceived and become an object of desire and effort” (151). 

Technology presents new challenges to the public and serves as yet another extension of the commons. Public interest technology is a field that helps address the issues of the undercommons and the inequalities that exist for marginalized groups. It centers transparency, equity, and accountability to determine not just how we can use certain technologies, but why and by whom? Though regulation has already lagged far behind innovation, creating something different and something new is always an option the public will have to reclaim the commons. 

To me, “the public” can be defined as any grouping of people who interact with one another, and has a resulting communal effect. This can range from a small group like the nuclear family to a much larger one, like those of sovereign nations. I’d like to offer a more concrete definition; however, the concept of the public is nebulous and abstract in nature. It changes depending on the scale you view it. One thing that strings these groupings together, regardless of their size, is an emphasis on the interaction and the consequences that arise. But before we begin a discussion on the public, it is also important to call attention to “the private”. Directly opposed to the collective’s interests, “the private” can be defined as personal interests– interactions that would benefit the individual, rather than the whole. This is not to say that the private and the public operate as opposites and have no effect on one another. And while, as Dewey puts it, “…the consequences of an action are confined, …, mainly to the persons directly engaged in it.” (Dewey p. 12), it does not mean that these consequences cannot bleed into the public. These actions may go unnoticed, but the consequences can have resounding effects. Dewey even states that, “private acts may be socially valuable both by indirect consequences, and by direct intention.” (Dewey p. 14). While the interests of the two might seem to be in contention, I believe that there is great synergy between “the public” and “the private”.

———-

 With the advent of technological advancements, groups who did not have the capacity to previously interact now can do so, resulting in much of the focus taking place on the larger end of the spectrum. Dewey states that this is due to “the consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, …[generating] constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities.” (Dewey p. 114).

 Prior to this, the face of “the public” mostly consisted of small localities like townships. These communities, through the pragmatic lens of Dewey, had “political objectives” that consisted of, “roads, schools, and the peace of the community,” (Dewey p. 111). The creation and care of these social services are directly influenced by the public’s social interactions. When people congregate and decide to live and interact together as a unit, whether it be as a nuclear family or as a township, problems and consequences are sure to arise. The desire to cope and abate these consequences results in the creation of regulatory systems of control, and as this social system continues to evolve and grow at the behest of the collective, it will result in the coalescence of “The State”.

———-

              Now that we’ve introduced the conception of “The State”, we can begin to discuss how its regulatory role has impacted the public’s resources and communal spaces, known as the commons. The commons exist as a natural consequence of human interaction. Because conflicts will also naturally arise, a regulatory system known as “The State” will also be born. The question of whether it is a solution or a tragedy seems, to me, to be disingenuous. The commons will always exist as long as humans interact with one another. How we use this resource depends entirely on “us”. Dewey states that, “Everything that is distinctly human is learned.” (p. 154). Because of this, man has the capacity to reason with his natural instincts. This ability to reason directly affects how we use, allocate and distribute our resources. Perhaps unfortunately, we often relegate this responsibility to the system of “The State”—almost to the degree where, as Baviskar states, “[it has a] monopoly over urban land.” (Environment and Society p. 118). This relegation of resources and capital has given The State direct control and influence over the commons. Akin to the desires of townships past, human interaction will always create a desire or rather a need for social projects.

Depending on the system in place, is it the private or the public which benefits most from the commons. Here it is where I say the question concerning the morality of the commons becomes disingenuous. If you were to ask the community of Jhuggi of Delhi, the answer becomes obvious. However, if you were to ask those who individually benefit from it (i.e., the private, or in this case, the bourgeois), the answer changes. The reason I designate these the bourgeois as a private group is because of its exclusionary nature; denying the right of access to the commons directly goes against the communal ideology at the heart of the public. The current nature of The State, creates a principle of elaboration, resulting in a group that is inherently marginalized.

 Herein lies the formation of what Moten and Harney might consider, the undercommons. (I would like to note that the concept of the undercommons is not limited to the marginalized. The concept transcends this idea, while challenging traditional structures of power.) The state, due to its relegation of finite resources directly creates the marginalized, which can be seem in the struggle of the Jhuggi; interpellation becomes fruitless when The State decides what is “incompetent, unethical, and irresponsible, [bordering on criminality].” (Moten and Harney p. 36). If human nature is in fact learned, as Dewey states, the idea set forth by Moten and Harney seems to become viable, and I suppose this compounds the idea of the disingenuous nature of the question. The question becomes disingenuous because it is simply a question we should refuse to answer—we should not consider which is the better descriptor of the commons, or even the contention of the space. Rather, we should consider the creation of a system where these descriptors of the commons don’t even make sense. The presentation of this idea might seem harmful, but it is seen as harmful to everyone. As Moten and Harney said, “ …no one will really be able to embrace the mission of tearing “this shit down” until they realize that the structures they oppose are not only bad for some of us, they are bad for all of us.” (Moten and Harney p. 10). We should seek to create a system where there balance between the private and the public, the individual and the collective– Where there is no “Us versus Them” and all that remains is “I and Us”.

As I delve deeper into the fascinating world of Public Interest Technology, two fundamental concepts have stood out: “the public” and “the commons.” These ideas, which I’ve been exploring through various readings, have not only illuminated the intricate relationship between technology and society but have also provoked some intriguing questions that I’ve been pondering.

Unraveling “The Public”:

So, imagine this: It’s like when your favorite artist is in town, and there’s a massive crowd at the concert, all there for the same music. That’s the vibe I get when I think about “the public.” It’s not just a random gathering of people; it’s more like a colossal fan base, all sharing common interests and concerns. In the tech realm, this concept challenges us to rethink how we approach the creation of new tech innovations. It’s not just about catering to individual preferences; it’s about considering what benefits this vast and diverse group of people.

However, this leads to an intriguing dilemma. With such a diverse assembly, how do we ensure that technology serves the needs of everyone effectively? This question has steered me right into the heart of Public Interest Technology, where concepts like inclusivity, equity, and fairness take center stage.

Exploring “The Search for Community”:

In our hyper-connected digital age, technology acts as the glue that binds us together. We chat with friends online, share hilarious memes, and feel like we’re part of a global community. But there’s a twist to this story. Sometimes, technology, which was meant to bring us closer, can also make us feel strangely distant from one another. This paradox has prompted me to embark on a quest: How can we leverage technology to foster genuine communities where people truly feel a sense of belonging?

This question resonates deeply in a world where digital interactions play a significant role in our lives. I’ve been pondering whether technology genuinely facilitates deeper connections or, at times, contributes to feelings of isolation and disconnection. These inquiries have led me to explore the intricate ways in which technology shapes our social fabric, aligning with the insights shared in Dewey’s work.

Communism and Socialism in Context:

It’s intriguing how discussions of “the public” and “the commons” occasionally bring to mind notions related to communism or socialism. These ideologies emphasize collective well-being over individual interests and advocate for shared ownership and resources. While Public Interest Technology doesn’t align directly with these ideologies, I’ve noticed some intriguing parallels. The notion that technology should benefit society as a whole rather than just a privileged few resonates with the principles of equity and collective welfare, offering me a fresh perspective.

Redefining “The Commons”:

Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, in their thought-provoking work “The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study,” have challenged me to view “the commons” in a new light. They encourage us to envision it not as a tragedy but as a thriving space where creativity knows no bounds. I visualize it as a dynamic park where people from diverse backgrounds converge to play games, enjoy picnics, and share their talents. This concept mirrors the commons in the tech world—a place where individuals from various walks of life collaborate, brainstorm, and devise innovative ideas and solutions.

However, I’ve been curious about why some critics cast a shadow over the commons. What transforms it into a hub of innovation, and how can we maximize its potential? These questions have motivated me to reconsider the conventional narrative surrounding shared resources, aligning with Harney and Moten’s thought-provoking perspectives.

The Path to Equity:

In the grand scheme of Public Interest Technology, my overarching goal has crystallized: to contribute to making technology accessible and beneficial for everyone, not just a privileged few. This endeavor has led me to grapple with the pressing concern of forging a technology landscape where everyone receives an equitable opportunity. I’ve come to realize that achieving this vision requires the collaboration of diverse stakeholders—technology experts, policymakers, and individuals like me.

As I embark on this journey, I’m guided by some essential questions: How can we construct a technology ecosystem that ensures a level playing field for everyone? What roles do various stakeholders play in achieving this vision? These questions serve as a roadmap toward a future where technology becomes a tool for fairness, accessibility, and utility for all, echoing the sentiments expressed in the readings and the context of Public Interest Technology.

In summary, my exploration of “the public” as a collective assembly and “the commons” as a fertile ground for innovation has led me to embrace the principles of Public Interest Technology. These principles, which aim to ensure that technology is both equitable and beneficial for everyone, are not just abstract concepts. They are ideals that empower individuals like me to shape the technology landscape of tomorrow, drawing insights from the readings and their implications for our digital future.

Individuals who act in self-interest, Hardin argued, is what will lead to the decline of the commons (Schlottmann, et al., 213). These individuals make up a group of people called the public who share a common resource or space known as the commons. The state organizes the public through officials with the purpose of protecting the shared interest of the members (Dewey 33). We cannot deny the fact that the state is still made up of individuals, who will be tempted to act for their own gain. For this, the commons will result in tragedy due to individuals acting in self-interest through the disguise of the state. 

The power that individuals have through the state is more dangerous to the commons by instilling their facts as laws or truths for the public. Individuals alter facts for their own interests and advances or through their personal biases (Dewey 7). Data is often determined as the source of truth, but what if that source is not truthful. It has been tested that algorithms have been influenced as a reflection of biases in the data. The bias in policing is skewing the data towards predicting that black defendants will comment a violent offense more often than white (Toomy and Sweeny). We can see that the data can be alter by individuals and in turn changed to facts. If individuals with power can bend the data to conform what fits their needs or beliefs, then these “facts” risk becoming the “truths” for the public. 

It is important to contemplate the purpose of individuals acting in their self-interest. It could perhaps be personal interests and gains, like monetary or status gains. We can see this example through Hardin’s simple example of adding more cattle to the pasture. But it may also be more complex and deeply rooted and therefore, other considerations including historical, sociological, anthropological, psychological, and philosophical contexts must be considered. 

Individuals at the state level will work to enforce their self-interests for multiple reasons including cultural and beliefs. Van Vugt said that humans have a strong sense of social belonging, and the strength of their social identity shows how much they are willing to help their group and when people have a strong tie to their group, they are more concern about their reputation (Schlottmann, et al., 245). Individuals of the state act in their self-interest to uphold their reputation. For example, we can often see politicians pushing agendas that support their groups beliefs. Whether it is right or wrong, perhaps individuals fear ridicule or ostracization from the only community they have known. Individuals come from vastly different cultural and societal belief system. As the management of the commons grows to encompass the world, this only becomes more complex.  

Differing cultural beliefs and personal interests make it challenging to foster successful cooperation when managing the commons. If successful cooperation, is what will help the commons, where does that leave us with different ideas on how to management the commons, let alone different cultural and social foundations. This can make it difficult for two different communities, or countries to come together to determine how to manage data and the future of technology. Furthermore, when communities that at this moment are left out, for example a rural community, or an older population, how do we ensure that their interest, and views are represented and protected for the future? 

And through this, we must bear the question, at what cost do we regulate the digital commons? Will it protect, or will it cause harm as individuals act in self-interest through the state. For example, if OpenAI is regulated like how some countries have chosen to regulate social medias, this can risk that individuals at a state level can determine what is fact for the public to consume. Or it is also possible that managing the commons will protect the data of the public, so organizations are unable to take advantage. The managing of the digital commons seems to be marked by a fine line and has a slippery slope.  

Although the future of the commons remains bleak, that doesn’t t mean we shouldn’t attempt to work towards common goals and rethink the current way of managing the digital commons.  

As globalization accelerates, it becomes harder to regulate the commons in ways that use to work (Schlottmann, et al., 235-238). It is important to evolve with the changing times. What worked in the past of farmers managing land may not work as new technologies come out and times change. We must rethink our historical approaches because the only thing that remains constant is change. We must evolve our practices and what we deem as a solution. The commons are a dynamic space that changes with technology and globalization.  

As technology and globalization bring the world closer together, individuals of the state must work with cooperation within their framework and with other governments. Ostrom states that management of the commons depends on the cooperation of appropriate international institutions and national, regional, and local institutions (Schlottmann, et al., 214). But they must also come from a place of understanding that the public is made up of individuals from differing cultures and beliefs.  

Lastly, an interdisciplinary approach of PIT must build the framework within the state and its agencies to ensure a wholistic approach is deployed for the management of the digital commons. Hardin notes that solutions outside of technical solutions should be considered because technical solutions do not change human values or ideas (Schlottmann, et al., 202). By using an interdisciplinary approach, we can work to minimize the tragedy of the digital commons by understanding historical, psychological, philosophical and socioeconomics context of the public.