Moral Panic! about the Internet? Try data sovereignty
For this week's episode I spoke to Dr. Emaline Friedman (@emalinus4). She is a network activist for the Commons Engine, part of Holochain, a social critic and theorist, has a PhD in psychology, a writer for Mad In America, a researcher at GCAS, and author of the recent book Internet Addiction: A Critical Psychology of Users. During the interview we talk about her research for her new book around moral panic about the internet, how that is closely linked to data sovereignty, and how it...
Top Keywords
No salient keywords identified yet for this episode.
Transcript
So hello everyone. You're listening to the Blockchain Socialists podcast again. And for today's interview, I have Doctor. Emmeline Freedman. She's a network activist for the commons engine, part of Holochain. She's a social critic and theorist. She has a PhD in psychology and is the author of the recent book Internet Addiction, A Critical Psychology of Users. So hi, Emilean. How are you doing? Good. Good. Thanks. I'm glad to be here. Yeah. So you have a really interesting profile with your experience in psychology, in Holochain, in some left politics. So I'm curious to find out more about how you got into this like really interesting intersection of, of all these different things.
Yeah. So I think as a psychologist or a psychological thinker, I was always interested in the function of listening and sort of the role of the the secret keeper. And in college, I was a major, like, a methodology sort of nerd because I was really, really concerned with data ethics, and I didn't even know really to call it data ethics at the time. But I've kind of had a lifelong proclivity toward or just, like, interested in the notion that that regular people like, it's worthwhile to listen to people and that there's, like, boundless wisdom, basically, in everyone that really should be heard as both like a public good and also as a as a process of healing. And so I take storytelling really seriously. And it was kind of horrifying to me actually going through sort of like a mainstream psychology education, learning about how narrative data is collected and analyzed. And narrative data itself even is pretty, it's it's it's pretty fringe these days in psychology. What what what exactly do you mean by narrative data? Like data about someone? Yeah. Like, talk data. Like, data that pertains, you know, in tech speak, we'd say data that pertains to the user.
Like, messages and stuff like that included.
Yeah. And and I and I'm talking here about, you know, like, interview methodology and the way that's Okay. The way yeah. The way that the way that the way that psychological researchers come in with quote, unquote subjects, you know, and try to set up, frameworks for storytelling or sharing of personal information. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah. So, so I was always really concerned about how that proceeded, and kind of just had a high sensitivity about, yeah, about the way that people tell their stories and the way that that data is processed and held and and analyzed. And as, yeah, as I progressed my education, I was always really interested in the fact that nobody in like, psychology doesn't really care about what's going on online. When it seemed pretty clear to me that people were using all sorts of, you know, like, all styles of of of media and communication to sort of create themselves in different ways across new distances. And so, yeah, a lot of what a lot of what drives the, yeah, the nexus for me of psych, crypto, and left thinking is, like, okay, what is psychology not doing and why? And a lot of it is around, kind of like the diminishing value of storytelling, kind of like a strange disinterest in the way that subjectivity is actually being produced technologically today. And, yeah, and, and also a lot of, you know, like neuroscience is quite a bit more popular than, than than qualitative research, for example, these days. So there's also a lot of, like, bypassing of the specific nature of human subjectivity. And I think that there's and there's a lot of intersection actually in the way that, you know, in the way that psychological research now proceeds and in the way that big data is processed and analyzed on social media. So I saw a strange confluence there and kind of sought to ask both of psychology and of major social media, you know, like, like wanting to take both of those sort of major data producing industries to task.
And and was sort of, I guess, the crypto world part of that answer, at least from what you could see what was available in terms of taking on those those things?
Yeah. I mean, a lot of for me, my entrance into the crypto world was fully based around, data sovereignty, and thinking that perhaps if they're and you know, there's been a lot of learning since then. But, you know, the initial thought for me was, okay, perhaps if people had more, more sovereignty over their data, you know, if they owned it or had privileged rights to it, or if they were tasked with with storing and sort of managing it, opting opting in with their data to to to various research projects rather than the other way around, You know, where the, like the psychological researcher or the social media company is, like, you know, fully, yeah, fully responsible, for for for what happens there. I thought maybe that would be sort of like a key to greater bargaining power or greater control over, you know, the way that that people are represented on a personal, but also on a collective level. And so it's kind of an experimentation starting from, like, what can data sovereignty do for users who are constantly framed as being kind of just, like, passive dolts. Right? That economic layer was a bit missing. Yeah. Definitely. I mean, there's kind of no question. Right? Like, I mean, even in the best of psychological research, and and and there are some fringe there are some fringe styles of doing research about humans that I don't wanna, you know, here. But for the most part, you know, there's like a striking similarity between the human subject of psychological research and lab rats, basically. And so both in terms of how how data about humans is is understood in tech and in psychology, there's sort of like a mirroring too of just like the constant diminishment of human subjectivity, you know?
Yeah. So maybe I would love to talk a bit about your books. I think it forms as like a good basis for for the rest of the conversation. But I think the the description of your new book is really interesting that it hints or in the description, that I read online, it hints at sort of addressing Internet addiction, like, as a collective and a societal ill, as opposed to what I think is sort of like the usual stereotypical story of like, you know, maybe like that South Park episode of like kids, addicted to World of Warcraft or something like that. And like, you know, their parents just like aren't being restrictive enough on them and they actually need to just like put put a timer on their internet time. But yeah, maybe you could share a bit about the book and like how internet addiction could be solved as a type of societal ill as opposed to like a personal issue with yourself.
Yeah. Definitely. So okay, there are a few things there. The first the first is that, so the book is basically meant to draw attention to all of the different threads of moral panic, that are directed at Internet use and at major social media platforms. And so what I was trying to do there was to show psychologists and other human service professionals basically how they're contributing to that moral panic, without really recognizing the full ramifications of that. Because I think moral panic around the Internet is like a highly political issue. But then also sort of to point out the lost opportunity there, which is that, you know, psychological thinkers more than anyone should be able to kind of counter that narrative and actually shed light on the kind of amazing, like, creative processes and the different forms of social organization that are trying to emerge online. And so I kind of wanted to to to sort of, you know, create a call to action that was like, okay, not only should not only is this moral panic seriously misdirected, but also, it really bears spotlighting, some of the some of the some of the human struggles that are emerging online that are certainly not specifically the cause of the of the media themselves.
And I presume that the this moral panic that you're talking about is also partially I mean, it is probably also very profitable for a lot of these type of social media companies, similar to, I guess, you know, news broadcast where you want to get, yeah, get as many watchers, get as many eyes on your content as possible. And one of the ways to do that is sort of, like, inducing panic.
Are you talking about, like, all all press is good press sort of for these companies?
Like, kind of. But but also I think, like, sort of I feel like there are probably mechanisms within social media companies that sort of exacerbate, like, the virality of, like, particular pieces of content that are, maybe quite, or not maybe just complete falsehoods, but they induce a type of emotion inside, a person to, like, to keep watching and to keep to keep reading and to keep looking. And at the same time it sort of induces a panic. I guess that's sort of how I I understood it, but maybe it's something else.
Yeah. Yeah. So I think what you're talking about is what I would call the specific mechanisms of Internet addiction, which are really poorly described by psychologists, actually. So this is, so so you're you're you're you're talking about, like, the real the real content of the issue, I think. And I was just trying to frame that the, that Internet addiction is part of this sort of framework of moral panic that skirts a lot of the issues, like a lot of the, you know, the socioeconomic structure of the Internet and a lot of politics online, basically, like that doesn't really want to know anything about the specifics, but that just sort of like, you know, sees a lot of things changing in the social world. And it's kind of like a fear response to the large scale societal shifts that are that are happening online. So it's at first sort of just like a call to look at the fact that, you know, there's like a lot of outrage, that that really that doesn't actually get into, any specific critiques of of what's going on online. And and the reason why, you know, the reason why I kind of have to start so far back there is that, is that psychologists really don't seem to be very interested in what people are actually doing online. Like, my whole criticism of the notion of Internet addiction is that there's no well, there are a lot of issues with it. But the way that it's operationalized in psychological research is basically, all Internet activity is purely a function of time spent. So there's no qualification in any psychological research about what people are actually doing when they're online. It's sort of just like a binary, like, are they staring at a screen or are they doing something else? And that something else is always supposed to be something more socially beneficial, you know? And that's, that's what that's what internet addiction sort of sloppily inherits from a general addiction framework is that you're either like in the addiction and we don't really care about, like, what the drug is doing for you or what, you know, psychotropic realms you're exploring or whatever. We just care about the fact that this addiction is taking you away from living in the real world. They're very heavy handed about, you know, online is not the real world. The real world is where you have a family and you have a job and you, you know yeah. Where yeah.
Yeah. I see. Yeah. It's very different from an addiction to heroin or something. You're either on heroin or you're not on heroin. Whereas, I guess, the that type of framework loses the, the details. If, you know, if you're online angrily or watching like right wing conspiracy YouTube videos versus like, I don't know, talking to your grandmother through Facebook Messenger or something are quite different quite different experiences. And we wouldn't we wouldn't do the same thing with like in person social interactions. Like I think psychologists would they divide the types of social interaction, that you would be having with someone, but they don't maybe they haven't really gotten to sort of, categorizing sort of Internet based interaction.
Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And and it's really it's it's a shame because I think that they're exactly the sort of people, you know, who, who could counter some of the moral panic about the Internet that comes from other parts of society. Right? That was it's like quite popular in in politics now to talk about, you know, too much screen time for the youth and and things like that. The World Health Organization is involved. So, you know, I'm kind of like, well, maybe we should actually look at what people are doing online. Right? Like, it's kind of my my secret way of of trying to get human service professionals interested in, you know, even the further realms of, like, like network organization and in crypto or, you know, some of the things that people are doing, that are specifically issue from the possibilities of all to all peer to peer communication. But that, but that see the light a little bit more because, you know, rather than just joining in the chorus of sort of like, oh, these exploitative social media companies. But in fact, that is where the book goes. You know, I'm like, okay. In order to be able to to to really look at, how subjectivity is is being created online right now, we should, in fact, have a solid basis for understanding what what the terms of what the terrain of struggle is. Right? So in fact, we should be caring also about, you know, Facebook's profit motives and their opaque algorithms, and the fact that they've sort of, you know, major social media now has sort of become like a kind of policymakers and tastemakers and right,
censors. Yeah. I like your use of the word terrain of struggle, because that's sort of how I would also describe the crypto world, as well, to a certain extent. And I have plenty of ideas about how the Left should consider that, so that we can talk about maybe a little bit later. But it seems like this seems like such a particularly difficult issue when it seems that almost everyone has an Internet addiction nowadays. Like, like, I am online quite a bit just, I mean, because of and other people as well because of the pandemic but also because of my my work and like me ever since I started this like platform, like I feel the need at least to like constantly be online so I can like check, you know, what's going on with my platform, so I can like respond to people when they message me if they have questions and, like so I that that seems like such a tough, thing to to, like, even begin tackling when it's already it it, like, sort of it snuck into our lives. Like, I like I I do remember a time when there wasn't much Internet or we didn't have smartphones. And like I think especially the introduction of smartphones I think just like drastically increased the amount of screen time.
Yeah. It's definitely the case. So you kind of picked up on the other the other fallacy of psychological research about internet addiction, which is that there is no control group. Right? Like there is no group of teens or whatever that you can point to and say, okay, here's what a brain not on the internet looks like. Because
This is your brain on the Internet. Like, remember, like like, the DARE program type of things.
Exactly. Exactly. So, you know, so and that makes it all the more obscene basically to like pick out people who are what, especially excessive and sort of point the finger at them. Right? So that's so so so there's also great reason, to get away from a punitive model of internet addiction.
How about the Amish? Could we take, could we take a few Amish kids?
Yeah. Maybe. I mean, who, who I, yeah, I should look into that, actually. I'm not sure what how the Amish are are handling the COVID pandemic and trying to, you know, keep their their their jobs or their education up online. But, but yeah, but but the other the other part of that, right? The other part of that polemic of internet addiction is that I want everyone to get squirrely and think, oh, my gosh, but I'm an Internet addict too. And that sort of brings us to the question of, like, who is the revolutionary subject of the digital age? You know, like, this was sort of a guiding question for me because I know it's not right. Like there's something really, I think there's something kind of pathetic about the fact that we think about human beings as users. So there's that play on words. Right? It's like, and you know, I'm a Californian, so it's possible that I, feel especially hazed in Silicon Valley culture. But, but but by and large, right, people and users are becoming indistinguishable. And so it was kind of, there was an effort definitely in the book to look at like, okay, how can we reclaim something like userhood? Can we reclaim being internet addicts? Or is there some other way to talk about the fact that we, you know, to be accountable and interested in exploring the depths of the fact that we create and are created by our digital technologies?
To me, it seems to mirror a bit this this, like, obsession with the word users as well. Like, the obsession of, like, with consumers. I mean, I think they're pretty closely linked, but, like, I feel like neoliberal capitalism probably the focus on consumers and, like, consumers being, like, the ultimate subject that you need to please for your business and, like, I mean, even government policy papers will will also treat their citizens as, like, consumers as well. So it's a yeah. It's pretty strange to read, like, being referred to as a consumer or a user by, you know, by your government or something.
Absolutely. Yeah. I've been really, I don't know. I guess I'm still I'm I'm mourning David Graeber's death pretty hard. And, and I bring it up because I was so blown away by, I'm trying to, like, I'm trying to sort of popularize his understanding. He was always extremely critical, I mean, as we all should be, I think, about this sort of model of the human being as consumer. And he sort of posed this question in a talk I was I was reviewing recently. And it was sort of like, what if instead of talking about, people as, you know, producers and consumers, Or, you know, instead of production and consumption, we talk about care and freedom. Right? Because because even even because and I and I, I was trying to work this out. I mean, just so you know, the book, the book is an adaptation of my dissertation work. So I've been grappling with these issues that are really complicated for, like, I don't know, the last seven or eight years, just to get these 100 or so pages out. And, and so I explored initially, I was like, oh, okay. Well, you know, we're not just consumers. We are also producers, you know, and got sort of taken down this slightly, like, misogynistic rabbit hole of trying to view everyone as as producers. And I ended up in a place of like, okay, you know, maybe we're on social media at least. You know, if you, if you look at the terrain of struggle, as, you know, platforms that are rentiers of, human social, you know, they're, they're taking rents on human social interaction, basically. You know, if, if we're producers of anything, we're producers of ourselves and each other. Right? So, so in fact, that's really more care than it is production. You know, and then the flip side to that, as Graeber would say, would be, you know, it's not so much that that that we're consuming, you know, it's it's that we are just sort of like trying to do the things we need to do in order to provide ourselves and each other, like, optimal conditions, to continue doing that care, right? So care and freedom rather than production and consumption.
Yeah, I like that. That leads perfectly to my next question. What is the connection, between for you, I guess, mental health and the precarization of life, especially under digital capitalism as yeah. As you as you were talking about, you it seemed like you were about to get into, touch on that
subject. Yeah. Definitely. And this actually goes back to to what you were saying of, like, well, aren't there actually you know, there are actually addictive mechanisms of these platforms. Like, they are in fact optimized to, you know, stir up as much outrage and anger. And I would also say, you know, jealousy and sadness, in us as a sort of, like, provocative social form, that, you know, that keeps the platform monetized. But, but going back a little further, I think there's a whole set of techniques that are associated with neoliberal policies of austerity and of efficiency and of privatization that really operate quite similarly at the institutional level as they do at the individual level. Like it's all stuff that sort of hollows out the liveliness of life, really. Like, the connection I make, I guess, is to, like going back to Foucault's lectures in the eighties about biopolitics as sort of an attitude about controlling whole populations through statistical methods. I think that stuff sort of comes to an apex with the digital economy, and the way that it uses individual expression, and particularly expression of of of pain, basically, you know, like real real cries, real cries out, as a way to sort of like gain a tighter a tighter controlling sort of grip on populations at large. And so there's a lot of, I guess the way that I see, the way that I see, digital capitalism now is sort of like cashing in on a lot of the, the individualizing processes of neoliberalism, where it's sort of like, you know, you take away social safety nets, you in debt people profoundly, you know, kind of ensure that there's no, no deeper sense of collective belonging or anything. And so you, you know, you take all of that and put it online. And, yeah. And and you get this whole sort of like performance of of of the pain of that lack of belonging and of that forced individuality.
I'm sort of maybe afraid to say something like this, but, at least, like, what what I've noticed and what I've sort of read is that, you know, sort of the increase in, like mental health issues in in people in in like younger generations. They're growing up in an Internet which already has these huge centralized platforms that sort of create these walled gardens for them to interact in. And like at the same time there has been a huge increase in like mental health issues, like around depression and and anxiety. So I feel like like through that process of making their mental health worse, they're like it makes them more wanting to use those platforms to, like, seek validation and then and then they also, like, suck out profits out of that at the same time.
Right. Yeah. And it is you know, I mean, it's also there's a chicken and the egg problem. Right? Like, it's such a it's such a juicy, area of thought trying to, like, tease out the specific effects of digital technologies versus the sort of, platform that they give for expressing other facets of life. And, you know, I never want to be too Whenever I veer into a realm of attributing too much to the internal dynamics of platforms, and and in fact, their addictiveness and the consequences of their algorithms, you know, it's still like important to always be to always be remembering that it's there's also a veracity to it. You know, where like a lot of the things that you see, I mean, some of them are like responses to that immediacy, but there's also, you know, there are also outside concerns that that that come to bear pretty heavily. You know, like a lot of what people I think a lot of what people are are doing online too and a lot of the reason that, that some of the surveillance discourse catches on in places that you wouldn't necessarily expect it to is because people are also aware. Like, people are looking for jobs online. You know, like, people are sensitive to that, that sort of like context mashing that on the major platforms that creates a lot of anxiety, and a lot of confusion and a lot of like, like a felt sense of repression. Because because of the fact that it's also, you know, an answer to, you know, lack of like lack of stable jobs and, you know, like like being in being in the gig economy, for example, or pursuing contract work. Like, there's such a higher overhead to, you know, find the next thing, and to be communicating more broadly. So
Hey, everyone. If you're enjoying this episode so far, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, share with a friend, and join the crypto leftist communities on Discord or Reddit, which you can find links to in the show notes. If you wanna be sure that more content that explores DLT like blockchain and the potential it has for the left could be created, you can donate to my efforts through Patreon. So if you go to patreon.com/theblockchainsocialist, you can donate starting at $3 per month or more to help me out and join the newest patrons like Stefan and Nikki nine lives. So at the moment, I've spent more on this project than I've ever earned from it due to hosting costs, so any amount really helps. And as a patron, you'll get a shout out on an episode like I just did and access to monthly Patreon exclusive q and a episodes where you can submit and vote on questions you'd like me to answer, and I'll give my thoughts in roughly twenty minutes. On the latest Patreon exclusive q and a episode, I gave my thoughts on the relationship between the rise of blockchain and the evolution of capitalism. Of course, I'll still be making free content like this interview to help spread the message that blockchain does not need to be used to further entrench capitalist exploitation if we put our efforts into it. So if that message resonates with you, I hope you'll consider helping out. You might notice that my audio quality is a bit better now compared to previous episodes that I've recorded because I've purchased a better microphone thanks to the donations of patrons. So thank you guys who've been able to help out. But I think that's enough from me. Let's get back to the interview with Emmeline Freedman. So maybe we can start inching our way towards, towards the crypto world. So what was your, like, moment that got you into Holochain and and the commons engine? Had there been like much work in the psychology field around taking part in like these commons oriented types of activities, with the commons engine or I mean, I imagine probably not that much with crypto, but Yeah. So so there's almost there's basically no rhetorical notion of of the commons in in psychology.
Not at all. And and that's of course, kind of what you were saying about, about mental health being weaponized. Right? Like, it's not just tech platforms that have an interest in, or, you know, neoliberal policy creation that has an interest in maintaining, like, the individual service user consumer. Right? It's also psychology, because the the sort of bounded individual is is is the the figure to whom it it pedals its services. Right? So, so it's also quite difficult to to find those spots in psychology. I mean, there are there there are community psychologies, and there are, for example, like, in the critical psychological realm, you see stuff like participatory action research, that kind of wants to, yeah, that kind of wants to take the focus away, from the bounded individual and look more at, not just at group processes, because that also exists in in counseling, but specifically at like, peer to peer and group wide and grassroots generation of knowledge and generation of like, you know, that that believes that people, that people are the best at solving their own problems, basically. So, yeah, yeah, so so there's almost none of that in psychology. And the way that I got into Holochain, and the way that the commons engine eventually formed out of that, is basically what I was talking about earlier, which is that, I would love to see both in the realm of, you know, both in the tech world and in the realm of psychological research and practice. It would be so great to see more of a turn to, like, entrusting people with their data, their stories, you know, the the ways that they organize themselves.
And and so why Holochain, as opposed to, like, other sort of maybe more traditional blockchain types of protocols? What was it about Holochain that that I guess spoke to you from that perspective?
Basically, like, the you know, in writing about this tech and subjectivity stuff from the Internet addiction perspective, like, the big realization for me is basically just that data sovereignty or sort of informed self exposure plus algorithmic sovereignty, and political participation in the governance of platforms, had to be baked into the way that software is produced. That's sort of just where I arrived. And I got excited about Holochain as a way of writing distributed applications, because it was pretty apparent from the get go that the blockchain is not meant to handle social media type applications. Right? Like the energy expenditure required for global consensus is just enormous. And so I was trying to imagine how that model would work for large social platforms. And it's sort of just like, you know, network wide consensus is definitely not required for sort of just regular social uses. So, you know, I mean, of course it's a huge problem that client server architecture puts like Facebook the company in the middle of intimate social interactions, but but I still don't think that that means that you need baking grade clearing house processes, you know, to sign off on those communications either. So to me, it was sort of like a, yeah, like a like a like a middle ground Because if you I'm not sure how familiar with Holochain you are, but basically it just takes the immutable records of blockchain and uses like a BitTorrent style, like peer to peer verification process.
Yeah. I mean I mean, the social media platforms using, like more traditional blockchain architecture in general, I found to be quite unsatisfying in terms like they're usually like built around this sort of like Chuck E. Cheese economic model where like, you know, you you you have to you can get like a bunch of free tokens or something like that and then you have to if you, like, watch videos, you'll get tokens, but you also have to, like, pay, you know, $5 or something like that in order to pull out your tokens or you have to reach just, like, a ridiculous amount of number high of tokens in order to get stuff out. And it sort of yeah. It just it just reminds me of, like, you know, being a kid and, like, going to Chuck E. Cheese and, like, asking my mom for, like, you know, more money so I can do arcade games just so I can get the the tickets to so that maybe if I keep doing the Wheel of Fortune game, I'll I'll get the the big prize enough so I can get the PlayStation two. It's like a million tickets.
Yeah. Yeah. And you end up spending so much money and then you only end up with those little like a ring pop or something like that. Right? Yeah. You've paid $20 ring pop. But, no. Yeah. I mean, there's so there's also I like that you bring up the issue of, I feel like there's kind of like a hangover from major social media style understanding of sociality on those platforms. Like, what's interesting to me, and and also Holochain doesn't have, like, a native token. Like, there's no need to have tokenomics anywhere in a Holochain app, which I love because, like, the whole to me, the whole revelation of the the social struggles of digital platforms is basically, like, the value of data in and of itself. You know? And the fact that there is effort to monetize data rather than just using the value of data directly. Yeah. To me, that's to me, that's the terrain of of major social media, and that is precisely the imperative that makes it such a toxic form of social engagement. Right? So, so to me, it's sort of like, okay, why not just politicize data in itself, rather than continuing to parrot big social media companies by insisting that it turned back into money, and then redistribute that, you know, like, I'm much more interested in projects that seek to, well, the projects seek to do this, I'm much more interested in the possibilities, the future possibilities of, you know, using data like, like people opting in to pooling their geolocational data in order to, you know, to create a fund where the municipal government, you know, gets to use that for planning purposes and funds the social media platform in return, you know. I'm interested in both partner state sort of possibilities, for how data can be valued directly. And also sort of like community self learning processes that can, yeah, that can occur through just direct valuation of the data for itself and what it says about our social processes and how they can be improved.
Yeah. Like focusing on use on use value versus exchange value, of your data. Precisely. That's such a more succinct way to say it. Thank you. So maybe you could explain a bit more about, the commons engine and sort of what that is and and what its goals are. You know, this it's it's like a project on top of on top of Holochain. It's it's sort of like a Holochain led project, I believe, or supported. Yeah. I would I would call it more of a Holochain ecosystem
project. Right? So, as is the case in most blockchain project, in fact, distributed ledger projects, as I like to say, kind of, expanding that frame. You know, in in most of those projects, there's an imperative to sort of expand out, like, basically, the the economy of totally out of the equation, it's still the case that for a network to be valuable, it needs to reach a sort of critical mass, or there need to be, like, connected connected islands of use, as it were. And that's definitely the case for for Holochain's promises for, like, mass interoperability, basically, which which would make the whole ecosystem much more useful. And so the commons engine, exists to kind of be like a sensor across different emerging Holochain applications and to sort of instantiate right off the bat, a sort of community led ethos, an ethos of community processes for generating, for example, you know, business models that don't involve ads or extraction of of user data, right? Or, of, you know, like there are there are shared needs that we imagine, existing across across all Holochain applications that, yeah, that involve viability, that involve, like, politicking through the apps, that involve licensing and issues like that, and and a lot of lower level technical issues. Right? Like, it's a pretty ambitious project to build a whole new, yeah, a whole new structure of net networking and data holding. And so, yeah. So we're trying to address lots of what we think of as ecosystem wide needs.
Yeah. Sort of like a pan holochain type of application. But so, yeah. I I I really like that it's called an engine mostly because like Marx liked to describe the economy as an engine as opposed to like a, like a system in homeostasis. He preferred using it as an engine. I I don't know if Arthur Brock or or someone over there is a is a Marxist or not.
Oh, that's an interesting question. It's it's definitely I mean, so socially and culturally, the Holochain ecosystem is quite unique, I think, in its, communitarian sort of heritage. I mean, I was really impressed when I first joined the team. Talking you know, we were talking earlier about, trying to yell out to the crypto leftists, like, where are you in this, like, crazy casino world? I was really impressed when I joined the project that, it was a lot of, like, environmentalists and intentional community enthusiasts, you know, kind of like a back to the land vibe a little bit. Yeah. But there's and so so really with the, you know, with the commons engine, it's like trying to, to maintain some of those to like, embed some of those communitarian values into the way that the ecosystem shapes up. You know, and and we're very much indebted to the, you know, to the peer to peer foundation here. Like I after after after a lot of searching, I feel pretty I feel pretty convinced that that is like, you know, talking about the commons as an emergent, emergent mode of production, or even a mode of exchange, you know, sort of just like a, like a viable post capitalist alternative. I think that's really resonant. And it gets away from a lot of the like, you know, cold war style politics.
And if people are list are interested in learning more about the peer to peer foundation, they can listen to my interview with Michelle Bowens previously. But so maybe I want to try to see, how we can maybe tie this a little bit together. Because like how do you think attempting to remedy these issues in mental health we've talked about and internet addiction through these like, participatory peer to peer comments oriented, technologies, and like modes of production, I guess, as well as trying trying to create. Like how does that address, you think, a lot of what I think the left is ultimately trying to achieve?
Yeah. So I think that yeah. I think that a lot of the way to resolve the the issues we were talking about earlier of, like, who is the revolutionary who are the revolutionary subjects, you know, and how can we counter the sort of, passive consumerist paradigm, the user paradigm, for thinking about for thinking about human beings. I think it's I think it's pretty clear that, like, a lot of what's happening is is quite simple, you know? And it's just that, people don't have a lot of say in the systems that they're being shuttled through. And I think a lot of it, you know, it's sort of like being sold, like having a lot of, a lot of culture of community sort of like, taken away from people, and then sold back to them on digital platforms and in related services. And so I think it's sort of like a wager on alienation, perhaps. And for me, the way that the tech comes into being is just as important as what the, you know, what it's actually trying to do as a communication service or a means of coordination. Right? And and I think really the the key here, with the with the with the progressive agenda is is, like, kind of like a like, there needs to be some way of getting people involved in the processes that run their lives, basically. So, you know, without wanting to get too cheesy about human potential and empowerment, it's sort of, I take, I take the tack much more of like, you know, if we can't dance, I don't wanna be part of your revolution. It's, it's more just that, like, I think that, yeah, the just the sheer value in getting groups of people together in a town hall style, or in some sort of, conversation or participatory process about how, you know, about what they what what they would want from these platforms, what sort of value they would hope to get from them. You know, how they would want it to interface with with other major social institutions is is really important.
Yeah. To me, it feels like the paradigm of using, sort of like the commons, it's, and like participatory, sort of like mechanisms, or like making it easy to be inclusive, it It it it fight backs against, I think, the nihilism that's very, prevalent among the Left sometimes. And you know some people, like especially like since, Bernie Sanders on everyone was like, you know, join DSA and like that'll that'll give you like a sort of place. I mean, whatever. You can criticize DSA for whatever you want, but at least it's like a place that people can, can join and like begin to hopefully like partake in in real action and and, yeah, fight back against the alienation that they feel. It's it's it's like it's it's also like, on one side it's helping from a like materialist sort of like big big world type of thing, but also it's dealing with, you know, the the personal and like mental health issues that go along with with capitalism.
For sure. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot in peer to peer in the peer to peer technology world. And I think the best the best that comes from the blockchain world is just this sort of recognition that there's something like super alienating about being involved in hierarchical social organizations. And that if there is a draw, you know, I mean, the reason why I think that this sort of communing needs to happen around technologies is specifically because, like, yeah, when I wrote the Internet Addiction book, it's like that I was trying to tell psychologists that this is like, where people are hanging out, you know? And, and, and the idea is not to go. I mean, I, I don't know. My politics is not one of, you know, like the world is elsewhere. Like if you wanna participate in civic society, you know, like, you need to get out of your life as it is and go join this, that, and the other thing. And you need to go put yourself in the position of a world leader and think, okay, what does the world need? Like, what can I do for other people? You know? So there's, for me, it's more like, wondering what would happen if, if it was possible for for, you know, for people to have more say in what's going around them, like right where they're at, you know, rather than sort of trying to, broach the huge lofty ideas involved in like solving all the world's problems, you know, like just shining that light of consciousness back on to smaller group processes, for me is, is like a really important start. Right? Yeah.
And do you think because from what I've read quite a bit from, from things published out of Holochain and and from you as well, do you think recognizing sort of non monetary value flows is like part of part of the solution to this, like, alienation problem?
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I do. And I think that that is you can look at wealth in so many different ways. Right? And I think absent, I think absent meaningful participation in groups, people fall back on monetary wealth, you know? And I mean, that's kind of a statement, that's like a larger statement on capitalism writ large, right? It's like, it's sort of like you get this, like abstract value form in exchange for, you know, all these other facets of life that it then covers over. And so that's a big part for me of thinking about what data can do, or how it can be used is just like, okay, if we cut out this this monetary intermediary, then we're just sort of left with, like, the sheer unwinding power of our the knowledge that emerges in a space once people are gathering together, you know? And and even even short of, you know, like, loftier projects that would want to use, that would wanna use data for, you know, like, larger state organized projects, which I which I definitely am interested in and and would support. There's kind of like I think I'm interested in this moment of, like, people being sort of, like, at ground zero with a bastion of shared knowledge, or or like a, you know, like kind of left alone with their shared shared memory, basically.
Yeah. So I'm curious to hear, because I ask a lot of people this question just because, I want to hear other people's experiences. But what has been your experience with speaking with maybe other people who are on the left about crypto or about Holochain and the comments engine. And maybe what do you think, like we should be doing to get more people on the left into the fray, creating more crypto leftists?
Yeah. So, I mean, I went to the Platform Cooperative Conference, gosh, I guess, few months before COVID hit. And that, to me, that's the other bastion. Like, that's the other group that I think, would be really prime to sort of, like, connect connect into this fray, basically. Like, people who are still focused on, like, specific problems of the digital economy. But I was really bummed to see that there was almost no there was almost no, like, organic mention of crypto. And when it came up, it was met with a lot of a lot of weariness. And so a lot of my experience, yeah, with with the platform cooperativists, but also with leftists who are, you know, doing mutual aid projects, who are engaged in, like, more more typical electoral politics. There's there's, like, a a lot of, there's a lot of weariness. Well, yeah. I mean, definitely definitely skepticism. Right? Like, the easiest thing to do is sort of, like, write off the crypto world as, like a huge a huge scam, which which is understandable. But I think there's also the fact that, like, I mean, a lot of times people don't disagree with me when I'm talking about data or algorithmic sovereignty, you know, but there's kind of this sense of like, oh gosh, you know, like our activism is so like exhausting and under recognized as it is that like, you know, switching platforms as as, like, a principled thing to do is sort of, like, beyond our can. Like, gosh, like, we're just trying to get at the vote, you know? And now we're supposed to, like, not use the power of Facebook just because, you know, there are all these issues going on behind the behind the curtains or whatever. So, yeah. I think it's it's really difficult for people to see, For people to see the it's quite it's quite it's quite a difficult issue, right? Like the the value of data. It's something that's quite philosophical. I think difficult to difficult to understand. And, and difficult also to counter this sort of this sort of distance that people feel from like, big technological systems. So so a lot of a lot of trying to engage with other people on the left about crypto is sort of just like emphasizing all of the ripple effects of the digital economy and saying, you know, like this isn't just this isn't just one new issue of of of landlording, basically, in our society, or it's not it doesn't sort of just fold into a generic issue of of social inequality. But it actually, like, hampers it hampers movements, like, right right from the start. Right? Big tech does. But but it still is perceived, I think, as a as a as a sort of moralism and is taken as, like, a, oh, like, okay. Like, you can criticize me for not going further like, not going far enough in my in my activism, but but we're trying here, and new tech systems seem really complicated and too much.
Yeah. Yeah. It's, it it seems to be mostly partially an issue out of I mean, just being kind of weak after just so many decades of of austerity and of neoliberalism and like of losing quite frankly, in certain respects, that it's like, yeah, in an ideal world, I think the left would have taken the opportunity during the rise of the Internet to have created very different types of platforms than what we see today with with with Facebook or Uber and and whatever else. Like, I think if if there was a proactive left then we would have had, like, our own platforms and we wouldn't be relying on making these yeah. Having to rely on Facebook and the niceness of of Mark Zuckerberg to be able to do your, to do your, you know, reach out to reach out to get out the vote or whatever.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, I think it there's also in aesthetic discomfort. You know, like there's the, I think that there is a real, I think it, I think it goes to it hearkens back to a money taboo, actually. Yeah. You know, I think there's, there's also like a really strong, a really strong moral sensibility around, like, you know, I'm not I'm not for the money, and perhaps my activism is, like, one place where where I'm not trying to be concerned with, you know, with, with with getting paid,
where it's, you know, and and and that's that's part of a larger problem. Right? Of, like, viewing
of of viewing political activity as, like, a sort of, locus for personal fulfillment. Right? Which is which is more of a facet of of liberal of liberalism now, I think. But in the, in the American context, I mean, these things are really difficult to, to, to tease apart. And yeah.
Yeah, no, absolutely. It's, it's, it's something that, yeah, it drives me insane sometimes in bringing up the points you're bringing up. No, but yeah, the I mean the left in general has been afraid to, I think, study money. I think because it's sort of like the, the ideal communist utopia maybe is, you know, a moneyless society and therefore I should not be even thinking about money. It should be it's sort of I think this incorrect, in my view, belief that you can just sort of like sever capitalism, like as if it was like, I don't know, an arm that you just cut off and then like then you can keep going with the with the rest of your body rather than as, like, a dialectical process of, contradictions, in which hopefully the synthesis of all those things creates something better.
Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. I mean, it's really, yeah, it's, there's definitely a sort of like sacrificial bent to a lot of the, I don't even know if I would say left, like to a lot of, you know, the, a lot of It includes liberals as well. Like radical yeah. To, like, a lot of radical liberals, there's some sense that, yeah, that one's participation is is is is is is sacrificial in nature. And I think that paradigm of of sacrifice, which for sure comes from, like, an individualist, you know, coming coming from, like, a culture, like, a neoliberal culture of of individualism. It's kind of difficult to see, like, participatory action as something other than a personal sacrifice. You know, like there's this really strong, like a lack of understanding and a really strong wedge between the individual and the collective. And so it generates this sort of like sacrificial paradigm of doing doing work for the common good, that doesn't include right. That ends up sidestepping a lot of issues or relegating a lot of issues of, like, material material survival and, like, what it actually takes to, like, you know, create institutions or galvanize new groups or or even, like, pursue a project in a continuous way. Like, it it pushes that out to the out to the fringe. And
Yeah. It's it's this mentality that I feel like is more it put it's been putting the left at a more at a very defensive position, in a very, like, reactionary in terms of, like, reacting to whatever new strategy that's, the right or whatever capitalism sort of throws at us. And so we don't have, like, the the mechanisms already in place on how to respond to things or, like, to prevent things from happening in the first place because, yeah, we're sort of standing on on thin ice, it seems like all the time.
Yeah. Yeah. And that reactionary, you know, that that sort of reactionary mode, is very much like, you know, I mean, it it it worked. Right? Like the the sort of framework of political recognition as like the sole thing that one could hope for worked, right? Like the recognition of individuals and in all of their differences.
Yeah. You on one side, you have your you have your work, and then on the other side in which you get paid, and then on the other side you have your volunteering, and that's that's where you do your good stuff. It's sort of like, I don't know, very I mean Christian, I don't know. Yeah, I guess like a Christian type of thing where it's like repent fierce. Yeah. It's it's very, yeah, it's not it's not a very cohesive, I guess. It's not a it's not a good way of looking at it if you want to build a a a a lasting movement.
Right. Right. Exactly. Exactly. It's this whole sort of like life is elsewhere, sort of thing. And and I think that that creates, right, like, to me, it's it's a bummer to have to tell up to this, like, you know, you're going to need, like, the state of state of the art tools in order to do your work. Right? Because it really reflects this larger sense that, you know, like, that's that's the big game. That's the big game. You know, like, we're here doing our, like, small is beautiful sort of, like, you know, we're we're doing macrame. And and and so, you know, like, we don't wanna, like, like, pull it, like, political engagement or, like, some some watered down form of it as sort of, like, a a refuge space, from from an already lost, superstructure.
So maybe to finish it off, then maybe you can tell us where people can keep up with you and your work. Yeah, definitely. So I
kind of unwittingly on Twitter. You can find me there. It also links to my Medium publications. You can also find me on my personal website, jizzherlinus.com. Yeah. And I also run a group called Solidarity Club, and that meets, every other week on Wednesdays.
I can put links to that there too. Yeah. Sure. I'll put all the links in the, in the show description for people so people can check them out. Awesome. Thanks. Well, thanks a lot for taking the time. And, yeah. We'll definitely stay in touch. Definitely.