The following is my response/rebuttal to Eben's LawNetSoc? lecture given on Wednesday, September 30, 2015

-- By ShayBanerjee - 01 Oct 2015

My Background: Not Total Ignorance

Milward Brown Digital, Inc. (“MBD”) is a market research firm claiming to be “the world’s leading digital expert in helping clients grow great brands.” MBD leverages proprietary software to track consumer behavior and then sells aggregations of that data to clients. More specifically, companies such as Google, Facebook, Bank of America, and Wal-Mart pay millions for data studies derived from MBD’s “Consumer Input Panel.”

I took a job as a data analyst at MBD in May 2013. A bright-eyed graduate of Boston University (“BU”), I was eager to earn money and develop cutting-edge work experience before law school. Over the next fourteen months, I worked about 65 hours/week preparing customized industry reports on online consumer behavior. What does that task entail? Stay with me.

Picture that every time you visited a url, a log file was printed containing a user id, a time stamp, the visited url, the referral source, the time spent on page, and demographic information about you. We called this “clickstream” data, and we had it for over 2 million users.

Now imagine that every time you conducted a search on Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. a log file was printed containing a user id; a time stamp; the search engine name; the search query; the title, ranking and url of every search result that appeared (the “impressions”); and the listing that you clicked. We called this “SERP” (search engine result page) data, and we had it for over 80,000 users.

Finally, imagine that the same company that had the above data also sent you periodic emails surveying you about your shopping behavior. This was called “attitudinal data,” and we had it for about 1 million users. Once we got their answers, we could match the user id against clickstream and SERP. So if we asked someone “have you purchased X product from Y site in the last 30 days” and she said “No,” we could tell if she was lying.

I worked with all of the above data, containing what likely amounted to trillions of log files going back over a decade. Using that data, I could tell clients that X percent of men under 25 bought a box of Trojan condoms from Amazon on March 25, 2011 or that Hispanic women on the West Coast spent on average Y seconds staring at that adorable cat video on Youtube.

That’s just client work. I also had full, 24-hour access to this data. What if I was less of an upstanding guy? Sure, the user ids were “anonymous,” but if I was dedicated I could have gotten around it. I could have gotten someone’s credit card number from that Amazon purchase form. I could have figured out who did that sketchy pornography search on February 8, 2007. I could have done a lot of things.

And what software did we use to complete all these evil data mining tasks that would have made Eben jump out of his socks? Yup, that's right: GNU/Linux.

My Perspective: The Relevance of Labor Time

I remain skeptical about the ability for the free software movement to solve the problem of subsistence. In my experience, most people do not use learning, education, and technology to solve social problems, but rather to pursue their own individualized economic goals. People who know the intricacies of CDOs, leveraged buyouts, climate denial, and wiretapping tend to be highly educated. That does not make their knowledge socially productive.

The fact is that providing the children of India and China with free software will accomplish little by itself. As long as they are anxious and hungry, like most Americans they will simply acquire the knowledge that is valued in the labor market. Since the factors of production condition human culture and knowledge acquisition by extension, it is most important to change the economic base and the incentive structure to which it aligns. Absent systemic changes in the economy itself, knowledge resources merely reinforce existing systems of exploitation.

All of this goes back to what we learned about political economy during the 19th century. Eben claims that in the digital universe the marginal cost of knowledge production and distribution is zero. The marginal cost, of course, is not zero, any more than the marginal cost of my spending the next three weeks lying on Jones Beach is zero. The cost in both cases is my time. In human economies, labor is the fundamental basis of value, and that value is expressed in time. Any time we spend playing NetWorldGame? or analyzing Volkswagon software is time that we are not working to accumulate the resources necessary to subsist. That might not be a problem for the predominantly upper middle-class white male population of techies whose writings we have been reading for this class, but it is a problem for most of the human race.

To be blunt, the problem is production, not consumption. All across the world, people are selling their labor time to socially unproductive enterprise in order to subsist. This is why Eben's final argument - that redistribution does not solve the problem of growth - is also wrong. Wealth redistribution encourages growth because it provides the poor with the freedom and time to pursue socially productive ends. In the mid-20th century, when, according to Eben, America was still "creating," we did not have any of the software toys he talks about. People who had the time to learn about social problems and solve them did so the old-fashioned way. What we did have back then was a substantially more equitable society than we do today.

Conclusion

When I graduated from BU, I felt the need to take a job at a company where the social impact of the work was questionable but the compensation was high. During the process, I acquired numerous technical skills, but did not use them on the sort of socially productive work Eben seems to believe flows organically from free software.

I am more class conscious than I was then, and at this stage I am lucky enough to not have to worry about going to bed hungry or homeless. To me, those two realities are the basis of my freedom and are what will help me drive social impact. The majority of the world does not have that. And I am not persuaded they will get it through the free software movement.

Shay, can you explain how and why you think Eben argued that socially productive work flows organically from free software? i don't think that's a correct summary. I think it's fair to say that unfree/proprietary software forecloses many possibilities for human progress, but that's quite a different concept. Do you agree with the latter idea as I have put it?

-- LizzieOShea - 01 Oct 2015

I don't need to explain, since I can just quote him from last week.

I think, as I said, that the point of attending to the brains growing within the network is that the brains thereby liberated think about the problems of survival and welfare of the people around them. By multiplying the quantity of human intelligence we multiply the intelligence devoted to human survival and welfare

To be absolutely precise, here I argue the diametric opposite of that last sentence. By multiplying the quantity of human intelligence we do not multiply the intelligence devoted to human survival and welfare. Instead given how the economy is structured we merely multiply the intelligence devoted to socially unproductive or counterproductive work.

To answer your second question (which, to be clear, involves a narrower claim than Eben is making), I will cede that free software makes learning easier, but I do not agree that proprietary software forecloses any possibilities for human progress. People find ways to learn what they need to learn. They have done so for thousands of years, long before computers, and will continue to do so long after either of us are gone. The point is to not to increase the amount of available knowledge, but to structure the economy in such a way that people spend their time acquiring the correct type of knowledge.

-- ShayBanerjee - 01 Oct 2015

Well, people have also been resisting and engaging in revolution for thousands of years and will continue to do so most likely regardless of whatever you or I do with our lives. But there are small but vital opportunities to contribute to creating those moments and helping to advance their cause when they take the stage. Of course, a piece of infrastructure like the internet, like power lines, like roads etc make life easier for people but do not make social change themselves. They will reproduce and reflect the inequality that is already in society. But freeing up those paths between people is a necessary project. They present great opportunities to connect people in ways that foster collaboration, solidarity and often critical thinking.

-- LizzieOShea - 03 Oct 2015

Lizzie, I admire your attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that in attempting to moderate you have missed the takeaway. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought on by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. According to you, there is no conflict - there are benefits to each approach. Thus, as long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth preserving. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further.

By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing a fundamentally political decision - one that is actively shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way necessarily involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice. Teachers are obliged to defend the merits of that choice or change it.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question underlying our entire discussion has until the end of this paragraph gone unstated, but to law students it should have already been obvious. The question, put simply: Does this curriculum represent the optimal value of our purchase?

As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that both center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, focusing directly on social injustice/poverty rather than on distributing knowledge to others in the hope that they will use it productively. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others.

We are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals, taking a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve a political judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society. I am not out of line demanding an adequate explanation for where that judgment came from.

-- ShayBanerjee - 04 Oct 2015

Shay: I think you overstate your presumption as to the purpose of the class. That may be the purpose as you receive it; but it's not clear to me that it really is the purpose in the objective sense, supposing that exists. For my part, to exemplify the nuances to the reception, it may very well be that exposure to topics greatly unfamiliar to a majority of the class ultimately results in the expansion and more precise direction of creative legal approaches than those which would result were the class to focus on overly materialist orientations. Funny enough, this possibility seems to mirror the conceptual framework of impoverished Indian children expressing their curiousity and ingenuity through the language of computers; we simply take the role of the children and our knowledge of the law fills in the gaps newly created by the subject matter and presentation within the class. I don't take it that the goals you describe are couched as secondary. Rather I suggest that the process of countenancing them is somewhat inverted in relation to what we would otherwise expect in the pursuit of such ambitions—expectations hardwired into our learning centers, I may surmise, by an educational system that Eben seems to fundamentally denounce.

As for the ultimate point as to where the judgment came from, my two years and change of law school have given me the impression that, when dealing with matter that is simultaneously arcane and unprecedented, it is often best to simply throw a bunch of stuff at a wall and see what sticks.

None of this is to disagree with your perspective as such. Just a thought.

-- GreggBadichek - 07 Oct 2015

Gregg, thank you for your perspective, but I think you also might be de-politicizing. Your comment reads as if we have not been told that our freedom is linked to the free software movement, as if we have not been fed an insular body of literature, as if we have not been told that tending to human brains achieves more than tending to human bodies, as if it has not been implied that Mark Zuckerberg is a greater threat than, say, Agribusiness or Big Oil. In other words, you write as if there are no power relations governing the makeup of this curriculum.

If there are impoverished children in India expressing their ingenuity and curiosity through computers and in ultimate pursuit of socioeconomic change, perhaps those stories should be told instead of discussed in the abstract. That would actually convince me about the merits of the free software movement. Until then, all I am hearing about in these readings and lectures are a group of society's most privileged individuals who so love their privilege they decided to give it a name: "Revolution."

To be blunt, I simply do not believe that starving children half a world away are engaging in the same sort of intellectual endeavors that we are under the shadow of the ivory tower. Being only one generation removed from those children, I believe they are hungry and want us to help get them food. Until I see evidence of the former, I would rather structure our learning environment on the latter. I'm sorry if that demand comes off as impatient or cynical. But, as a racial minority, I have been lectured enough by those in power about what my freedom looks like to approach this whole thing with a certain degree of skepticism.

-- ShayBanerjee - 07 Oct 2015