![From the description for this
series:
Imagine living in a society in which most of the land and buildings
available for meeting and working were owned by a few for-profit
corporations. Churches, governments, groups of friends, schools,
nonprofits, and grassroots social movements would each have to reserve
space on — or have a key to — a privately-owned facility, often on a large
corporate campus, in order to meet and work together. It would be a
society with no domed capitol buildings, city halls, temples, open
campuses, public parks [or libraries], community centers, or nonprofit
spaces.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/davies-gastil-slides-oct-27-2020-201027195622/85/Digital-Public-Infrastructure-A-Corporation-for-Public-Software-2-320.jpg)
![From the description for this
series:
Imagine living in a society in which most of the land and buildings
available for meeting and working were owned by a few for-profit
corporations. Churches, governments, groups of friends, schools,
nonprofits, and grassroots social movements would each have to reserve
space on — or have a key to — a privately-owned facility, often on a large
corporate campus, in order to meet and work together. It would be a
society with no domed capitol buildings, city halls, temples, open
campuses, public parks [or libraries], community centers, or nonprofit
spaces.
Fortunately, this is not the society we live in, but it does describe the
online spaces where our digital information is stored and where much of
contemporary life – including civil society action – now takes place. This
scenario is inherently threatening to democracies, in which free
expression and public participation presuppose people have both the
ability and space to assemble outside of corporate or government
monitoring.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/davies-gastil-slides-oct-27-2020-201027195622/85/Digital-Public-Infrastructure-A-Corporation-for-Public-Software-3-320.jpg)
Digital Public Infrastructure: A Corporation for Public Software
- 1. A Corporation for Public Software Todd Davies John Gastil October 27, 2020 Slides are available at web.stanford.edu /~davies
- 2. From the description for this series: Imagine living in a society in which most of the land and buildings available for meeting and working were owned by a few for-profit corporations. Churches, governments, groups of friends, schools, nonprofits, and grassroots social movements would each have to reserve space on — or have a key to — a privately-owned facility, often on a large corporate campus, in order to meet and work together. It would be a society with no domed capitol buildings, city halls, temples, open campuses, public parks [or libraries], community centers, or nonprofit spaces.
- 3. From the description for this series: Imagine living in a society in which most of the land and buildings available for meeting and working were owned by a few for-profit corporations. Churches, governments, groups of friends, schools, nonprofits, and grassroots social movements would each have to reserve space on — or have a key to — a privately-owned facility, often on a large corporate campus, in order to meet and work together. It would be a society with no domed capitol buildings, city halls, temples, open campuses, public parks [or libraries], community centers, or nonprofit spaces. Fortunately, this is not the society we live in, but it does describe the online spaces where our digital information is stored and where much of contemporary life – including civil society action – now takes place. This scenario is inherently threatening to democracies, in which free expression and public participation presuppose people have both the ability and space to assemble outside of corporate or government monitoring.
- 4. Where we are coming from... Our focus is on our society - the U.S., its States, and localities. However, • we are very open to partnerships across the globe • we are interested in learning whether our model, or a different one, would be appropriate outside of the U.S.
- 5. Institutionally-driven (1969-1992) User-driven (1992-2003) Commercially-driven (2003-present) telegraph, telephone, broadcasting, digital computing, cable television, packet switching, 1822 protocol UUCP, LANs, community networks, MicroNET and CompuServe, BBSes, Usenet, GNU, virtual communities (the WELL), UUNET, GPL, Linux spam, copy protection, software patents, CraigsList, Amazon, Google AdWords first host-to-host ARPANET connection October 29, 1969 First ISP The World provides full Internet access to its customers August 13, 1992 Google launches content-targeted advertising (AdSense) March 4, 2003 RFCs, Telnet, FTP, NCP, Email, TCP/IP, DNS, IETF, World Wide Web ISOC, search engines, W3C, digital divide, wikis, blogs, ICANN, Open Source Def., Independent Media Centers, Creative Commons Facebook, YouTube, Facebook Ads, Facebook Platform and Facebook Connect, iPhone, mobile apps Three Eras of the Internet... Precursors Watershed moment Associated develop- ments
- 6. Looking to a 4th Era... A Democratically-driven Internet, built on ü Regulation of commercial platforms to protect the public interest ü Antitrust enforcement ü Public software: noncommercial, government, community infrastructure ü Verified civic identities, available subject to user’s control
- 8. Commercially-driven versus public software Main driver: commercial revenues versus the public interest Lack of user/public role in design and governance versus democracy and justice in design Platform distortions that favor polarized and aggressive speech versus equity and peaceful conflict transformation Lack of transparency due to proprietary algorithms and software versus free and open source Silos and lack of coordination versus required interoperability Lack of verifiable and relevant identity information -- fake and duplicate accounts, versus Verified civic identity could be used for • Input to government • Community organizing and mobilization by civil society groups • Voting in both sectors
- 9. The historical analogy to broadcasting... Early 1960s – Disillusionment with commercial television and radio • Quiz Show and Payola scandals (1957-1960) • Defunding of public affairs programming • Concern about influence on children • Newton Minow's "Television and the Public Interest" speech (May 9, 1961) - commercial television a "vast wasteland"
- 10. Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1965-1967) "Commercial television seeks to capture the large audience; it relies mainly upon the desire to relax and to be entertained. Instructional television lies at the opposite end of the scale; it calls upon the instinct to work, build, learn, and improve, and asks the viewer to take on responsibilities in return for a later reward. Public Television, to which the Commission has devoted its major attention, includes all that is of human interest and importance which is not at the moment appropriate or available for support by advertising, and which is not arranged for formal instruction.” Public Television: A Program for Action (Jan. 26, 1967)
- 11. Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1965-1967) "The Carnegie Commission on Educational Television has reached the conclusion that a well-financed and well- directed educational television system, substantially larger and far more pervasive and effective than that which now exists in the United States, must be brought into being if the full needs of the American public are to be served." Public Television: A Program for Action (Jan. 26, 1967)
- 12. Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1965-1967) "We recommend that Congress act promptly to authorize and to establish a federally chartered, nonprofit, nongovernmental corporation, to be known as the ‘Corporation for Public Television.’ The Corporation should be empowered to receive and disburse governmental and private funds in order to extend and improve Public Television programming. The Commission considers the creation of the Corporation fundamental to its proposal and would be most reluctant to recommend the other parts of its plan unless the corporate entity is brought into being." Public Television: A Program for Action (Jan. 26, 1967)
- 13. Key Lessons Vision First • Keynes: "Anything we can actually do, we can afford” (1942 BBC speech) Draw on the unique capacities of government for funding, authorization, and coordination Cultivate partnerships in production Leverage other sources of support
- 14. What problem are we solving? •Lack of enduring noncommercial platforms •Unstable and insufficient funding is the underlying problem
- 15. How to address the problem •Corporation for Public Software funded by the federal government •Operates independently to fulfill a nonprofit mission •Could forge international partnerships, as PBS does with BBC
- 16. A broad vision for the CPS, word by word CORPORATION •Federal funding at its core •Mission: Noncommercial platforms and software in the public interest with the ease-of-use and functionality that users expect from the most successful commercial products
- 17. A broad vision for the CPS, word by word PUBLIC •Internal governance options •Role for the public at large inspired by participatory/deliberative democracy •Transparent decision making
- 18. A broad vision for the CPS, word by word SOFTWARE •Civic engagement/networking platforms •Civic education platforms from K-12 to higher ed. to adult •Non-commercial tools for connecting the public with each level of government
- 19. A broad vision for the CPS, word by word BEYOND SOFTWARE •Promoting open and democratic design principles •Facilitating knowledge exchange •Funding research •Celebrating democratic innovation