The Future of ZCommunications

znetZ’s Future

Times are hard for all media, and particularly for alternative media. This is due to a combination of factors including but not limited to a growing audience disinclination to pay for information. If you couple that with alternative media being unable, in many cases, to get foundation or large donor funding, and with its commitment to not selling its audience to advertisers, which would likely yield little revenue in any event, the situation becomes dire.

In the face of such trends, only a few avenues, other than surrender and dissolution, exist.

  • A project can seek to generate new income from new channels, to pay its bills.
  • A project can severely reduce its costs.
  • A project can convince its audiences that support is desirable and worth their attention.

Z is following all these paths.
trigger more text

We are working beyond our own institution, for added income. We are cutting Z salaries of two of the three full time staff by 50%, after having also drastically cut all other smaller but significant budget items – such as costs of our online operations. And, in this mailing – which will reach roughly 100,000 people, and more if you pass it along – we are going to try to convince you of the desirability of giving Z some support.

Do you yourself personally directly gain by virtue of Z’s continued existence and work?

If you do, that would be one simple and obvious reason to support it. The widespread idea that you shouldn’t support it, in that case, because you can, after all, get virtually all its content free, has two problems.

First, if you and others take that tack – there will either be no information from Z, or we will have to charge for all information we generate and convey.

And second, even if we manage to cut costs enough – like salaries – and to generate external income enough, by taking on work outside our operations – is it right that we should do that to sustain Z, rather than its huge pool of users sustaining it?

But what if you yourself don’t directly benefit very much from Z?

Think of those who write for Z or who work for it. The former get no payment for their labor. The latter get modest payment – which is soon to be less than minimal. In short, these folks provide labor free or nearly free. Why do they – we – do this?

Well, it isn’t because of non-income benefits we receive. The writers and the workers generating Z don’t do it for intellectual or emotional gains we get in reading the final product, for example, much less for the intrinsic fun of doing the work – it is not fun. No. We do it because of gains we hope and believe others will get, and movements will get, and society will get, from the appearance of the product. Is this stupidity on our part, and thus a mindset others ought to reject? Or is it exemplary, and thus a mindset others ought to cultivate?

I sometimes get email that says why are you fundraising? Sometimes such email is civil, honest, sincere. Sometimes, however, it is really aggressive, like, where the hell do you get off asking me for money. But all the time, ultimately, such email says, just do it all free. Give it to me free. Indeed, I will get messages like that in response to this emailing, and to coming campaigns on the Z site. And I am dumbfounded by it. Can leftists really think that that posture – do it free, give it to me free – is progressive?

Then by way of explanation, someone will add, I can get the information that I want without paying for it, without donating to sustain it, so why should I send Z any funds at all? And, again, to me this is mystifying. What it says is, I can get your information if I don’t support its production and dissemination, as long as others do – whether they do so by giving free labor or they do so by donating in response to appeals. So why should I donate?

Well, here is an answer that applies even if the person who is asking doesn’t, him or herself, get much gain out of reading Z. Suppose he or she is brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable, and knows everything that Z reports, analyzes, and discusses, without reading it, for example. Or suppose that for anything that the person does need to read, the authors send the material to to the person directly, as occurs, say, for some of our writers, who write for free, nonetheless. Or as occurs, say, for the three of us who do the labor, at cut rates.

The answer is, support Z anyhow because you believe in alternative media, because you realize that alternative media benefits society and movements, and because you realize that the extent to which that occurs or not depends hugely on reader support.

 

Atos ‘not fit’ to sponsor Commonwealth Games

18 March 2014 Last updated at 12:11 Help

Petitioner Sean Clerkin told MSPs he believed Atos were “contract killers” who were “not fit” to sponsor the 2014 Commonwealth Games, on 18 March 2014. Mr Clerkin’s petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the 2014 Commonwealth Games’ organising committee to drop IT company Atos as a sponsor. Continue reading “Atos ‘not fit’ to sponsor Commonwealth Games”

Ian McHarg 1920-2001 Scottish landscape architect Design with nature

Ian McHarg died this day in 2001 (NY Times obituary). He was a Scottish landscape architect who made his name in the University of Pennsylvania where he founded the world famous Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning in1955.

He was born in Clydebank in 1920 and (for those with an interest in the history of mountaineering in Scotland), was one of the Craigallian Fire men.trigger more text

Arguably his most famous legacy is his 1969 book, Design with Nature. One of his pupils and collaborators in the project was the Scottish landscape architect, Mark Turnbull, who is still practising in Scotland today. His book sat on the shelves of my Dad’s study when I was growing up. He was an architect and, as a student, I thought it would make an interesting contribution to the forestry course I was doing at Aberdeen University. However, so dismal was the outlook of the staff there (there were a few honourable exceptions), that the notion of even reading such a book was regarded as too radical. I read it though and recommend it to anyone with an interest in environmental and spatial planning (McHarg invented the sieve mapping technique now standard in GIS – the European Geosciences Union awards a medal in his honour).

His vision of how to understand ecosystems and undertake regional planning was so advanced that, as this blog notes, he predicted the areas unsuitable for urbanisation on Staten Island (dark shading on right). He was ignored and those areas match almost exactly the evacuation zones (in yellow left) at the time of Hurricane Sandy (see below).

But my favourite story about Ian McHarg relates to his involvement in the scoping work for Scotland’s third new town. McHarg worked in the Scottish Home and Health Department between 1950 and 1954 and in his 1996 autobiography, A Quest for Life, he writes,

One day I was summoned by the chief of the new towns section, an architect named Alex Wylie. East Kilbride and Glenrothes new towns were underway. There was considerable interest in yet another; both the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh thought that a site near Cumbernauld, between these cities, should be investigated. However, it was likely that this new town would be a satellite of Glasgow and administered by her. Would I undertake the study?

I immediately visited Cumbernauld. It had the virtue of proximity to the major highway connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow. As at East Kilbride several years before, the wind howled, the rain drove horizontally, the whole site was awash. Morevoer, the farms were few and scattered. Anthropologists long ago had learned that sparse human settlement bespeaks adverse environments and impoverished resources. I spoke to several farmers whose opinions were united. It was a miserable place, wetter than most, with intractable mud, poor soil, a high water table, few trees, and those wind-pruned.

…….

The ideal site, in classical and Renaissance times, was a southeast-facing slope. That could not be found on the Glasgow-Edinburgh road nor on the south of the Clyde, but north of it were admirable classical sites, south and southeast-facing, at elevations above fog with beautiful views to the Firth of Clyde and, south, across the Clyde, to the Renfrewshire Hills. On the day I went there, the sun was shining; protected from the wind I lay in heather and exulted in the views. There was Dumbarton Rock, a volcanic cone with a ruined castle atop, ancient capital of Scotland, the gleaming Clyde, and , far out beyond the estuary, the Paps of Jura.

There was one problem; the site was steep. Now this had halted neither Rome, Siena, Frascati; nor San Francisco. This constraint must be transformed into an opportunity; we are not building for popes or cardinals. I recalled a project in Zurich, the Neubuhl, by Haeflie and Moser, where housing stepped down a steep slope and the flat roof of the lower house became terrace, balcony, and garden of the upper house. This would be the answer. Hanging gardens, stepped housing, each one having the merits of an attached single-family house, each with as much outdoor and indoor space, and the gardens entirely private. If the block was to be composed of four houses in depth, then the occupants at worst would walk down three flights or up one. In city where the commonest house form was a four-storey walk-up tenement, this was not a serious objection. So house plans developed, simple rectangles, L-shapes and T-shapes with different dimensions. They were all modular and could be fitted in various permutations, but all had uninterrupted views to south and east and all had private entrances and gardens. Open space equalled the building area. On the skyline, out of every view but overlooking the whole, were towers and slabs for older people, single households, and couples without children. The towers provided views of a landscape of gardens.

McHarg goes on to describe the detailed design, “extraordinary economies in construction costs” and the energy efficiency.

I submitted the plans to Alex Wylie, chief architect for new towns, who then arranged for me to present the material to the permanent undersecretary, Mr McGuiness, an Irishman with a Scottish accent. Wylie introduced the idea and gave his endorsment. I was asked to add my remarks. I spoke glowingly of the hanging gardens, the morning-golden windows, the beautiful views, access to workplaces on the Clyde, proximity to Glasgow, the beautiful landscape setting and, above all, of the greater economy of this scheme as compared with conventional bulding. There was a long silence.

“Well.” McGuiness said, “It is certainly revolutionary. There’s no doubt about that, and I am impressed by the arguments about its economy, but we can’t build this in Scotland. Why, they haven’t even built it in England yet.”

“Sir,” I said. “If the Scots have to wait for the bloody English to build something before we can, this is not the country for me. Good day, sir.”

That night, McHarg wrote to Dean Perkins of the University of Pennsylvania, and asked “Do you know of any opportunities which I might pursue in the United States? I find the professional life here is far from gratifying.”

He was immediately offered a position as an assistant professor to set up the Department of Landscape Architecture and the rest is history.

McHarg writes,

A small ceremony was held before my departure, at which time I was presented with a handsome briefcase. Kind words were said. I decided that this was not the occasion for criticism, thanked my colleagues, wished them well, and left.

——————-
PS McHarg’s Wikipedea entry is very good account of his life.

Reply

Extending Solidarity to the Ecosystem

What would it mean to extend solidarity to the eco-system? That’s the question at the heart of this conversation with union activist and environmentalist, Sean Sweeney. The conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that fifty years will be more than sufficient to witness the worst impacts of climate change and if past is prologue, poor and working class communities will be hit doubly hard. Climate change is a class issue, and yet the trade union movement continues to drag its feet. In the US today, while trade unions that aggressively back dirty-energy projects are in a minority, big labor is not exactly in the leadership of the movement for a sustainable, fair, energy future. The US is lagging, says Sweeney, “In Germany now, there are seven hundred renewable energy cooperatives. Up to 25% of its power generation is renewable. It has installed as much solar energy last year as the entire installed capacity of solar in the United States.”

What would it take to make change? First things first: “For unions to get away from playing defense onto offense, they first of all have to tell the truth; they have to be aware of the urgency and seize the opportunities,” says Sweeney. In a word, “They need to extend solidarity to the ecosystem itself.”

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill Consultation

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill Consultation

  1. Transparency of Common Good Land

Common good land belongs to local authorities and only occurs in former burghs. Accordingly this theme is only relevant to groups either currently using or with ambitions to use Council land within a historic burgh. Establishing whether or not a given parcel of land or building is common good land is very difficult. If an area of land or a building is a common good asset, there are two practical consequences. The first is that in administering it, the Council must have regard to the interests of the inhabitants of the area to which the common good related. The second is that in some cases there may be barriers to the Council selling or leasing the land on a long term lease. These are factors which may be relevant where a community group is already on, or has its sights on, such an area of land.

trigger more text

It is proposed that local authorities should be required to create public registers of the common good land in their areas. These may highlight areas that are suitable for community gardening use, but also highlight that there are special considerations to take into account when negotiating with the Council. It is also proposed that there should be greater involvement of the community where a local authority proposes to dispose of such land. See consultation document paragraphs 41 to 47 and question 14.

 MORE EXAMPLE TOPICS:

On 6/11/2013 Scottish Government issued a consultation on the proposed Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. A “Bill” is a draft Act of Parliament. The Scottish Government’s intention is that, following this consultation, the Bill will be introduced into and debated by the Scottish Parliament. If the Parliament enact (pass) it, it will become statute law. The consultation is open for responses until 24 January 2014 and can be accessed here – http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/5740

The consultation document covers 11 separate major themes and poses 71 consultation questions. Details of how to respond are given below. Of those themes, 5 are likely to be significant to Federation members. These 5, and the relevant paragraphs of the consultation document and consultation questions, are as follows –

============================================================================

  1. Community Asset Transfer Request

It is proposed that community bodies be given a right to request that public bodies, such as local authorities, transfer assets (such as land or buildings) to them. The public body would then be required to assess the request on the basis of best public benefit; if they agree with the request this would trigger a process for transfer of the asset to the community body. Draft Bill clauses have been provided for comment (sections 1 to 10 of the draft Bill annexed to the consultation document.)

The main issues are likely to be

(a) is the definition of community body too restrictive? The draft Bill currently requires that it be a company limited by guarantee with specific lock provisions in its articles of association. Should SCIOs, Industrial and Provident Societies, CICs limited by shares and unincorporated voluntary organisations also have this right?

(b) Is the list of public bodies too restricted – note that it doesn’t include any public landowners whose roles are out with the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament, for example the Crown or Network Rail.

(c) Is the proposed process realistic in terms of timescales for a community body raising the purchase price?

See consultation document paragraphs 25 to 30 and questions 1, 2 and 3

===========================================================================

  1. Extended Pre-Emptive Community Right to Buy

Since 2004 rural communities with populations of less than 10,000 have been able to apply for a “pre-emptive” right to buy land and buildings relevant to their community. This means a right to be the purchaser, at market value, whenever in future the landowner decides to sell the land, not an immediate right to buy at a time that suits the community. The application for the right to buy is made to Scottish Government and needs to present a case for community ownership. Where Government Ministers are satisfied that community ownership would be in the public interest, they will give the community group the pre-emptive right to buy.

It is suggested that this right could be extended to all communities in Scotland, including urban communities. The overall discussion of this topic occupies consultation document paragraphs 54 to 70 and 74 to 133 and consultation questions 18 and 21 to 51 inclusive. However some of the detailed discussion and questions are likely to be quite confusing for readers who have not had any involvement in a rural community buy-out under the existing law.

Important issues for consideration include

(a) should the right be extended to all parts of Scotland (paragraphs 66 and 67 and question 17);

(b) how is a community defined in an urban context (paragraphs 68 and 95 to 97 and questions 32 and 33);

(c) what types of structure should eligible community bodies be permitted to have (paragraphs 98 to 101 and questions 34 to 36);

(d) how fair is the process for valuing the land (paragraphs 110 and 111 and question 39);

(e) how would such community buy-outs be funded – the existing rural buy-outs have mainly been funded by the Scottish Land Fund (touched on in paragraph 11 but not further discussed); and

(f) If community bodies require to raise some or all of their own funding, are the suggested timescales realistic, and would a longer timescale be fair to the landowner? (paragraphs 86 to 88 and question 29).

===========================================================================

  1. Absolute Right to Buy Neglected and Abandoned Land

The Scottish Government is also seeking views on the proposal that communities might be given an absolute right to buy neglected or abandoned land. How the concept of abandoned or neglected land would be defined is a major issue, as are the implications for the landowner’s human rights. See consultation document paragraphs 71 to 73 and questions 19 and 20.

===========================================================================

  1. Allotments

A number of changes to allotment law are suggested. The proposals seem generally sensible, but it is important that plot holders and allotment associations look at them and respond to the consultation questions. A new statutory definition of an allotment plot is proposed with size limits – current holders of very large or very small plots should respond to this. Sensible proposals are made to force local authorities to create new allotment sites in response to public demand. A proposal for a local authority regulation-making power appears sensible but insofar as it relates to huts and polytunnels might benefit from being tied into permitted development for planning purposes. It is proposed that sale of surplus produce would be allowed for the first time, with the proceeds going to the community. The application of some of the proposals to private allotments warrants consideration.

See consultation document paragraphs 168 to 181 and consultation questions 61 to 69.

===========================================================================

  1. Transparency of Common Good Land

Common good land belongs to local authorities and only occurs in former burghs. Accordingly this theme is only relevant to groups either currently using or with ambitions to use Council land within a historic burgh. Establishing whether or not a given parcel of land or building is common good land is very difficult. If an area of land or a building is a common good asset, there are two practical consequences. The first is that in administering it, the Council must have regard to the interests of the inhabitants of the area to which the common good related. The second is that in some cases there may be barriers to the Council selling or leasing the land on a long term lease. These are factors which may be relevant where a community group is already on, or has its sights on, such an area of land.

It is proposed that local authorities should be required to create public registers of the common good land in their areas. These may highlight areas that are suitable for community gardening use, but also highlight that there are special considerations to take into account when negotiating with the Council. It is also proposed that there should be greater involvement of the community where a local authority proposes to dispose of such land. See consultation document paragraphs 41 to 47 and question 14.

===========================================================================

Other topics in the consultation document

The six further topics which are of lesser relevance are (a) a proposed community right to participate in processes to improve outcomes in public sector service delivery; (b) better powers for local authorities to recover money spent on dangerous buildings; (c) strengthening community planning; (d) discussion about non-domestic rates and water charges (which are not being consulted upon in this exercise); (e) a proposal to put the Scottish Government’s strategic outcomes onto a statutory footing and (f) a very general final consultation question about subsidiarity and local democracy.

===========================================================================

Responding to the consultation

Responses to the consultation can be made online at

https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/community-empowerment-unit/cerb/consultation

Alternatively, the three-part consultation questionnaire and associated respondent information form can be down loaded on the link below and then submitted by either email or post

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/5740/downloads

The closing date for responses is 24 January 2014.

Iron Cagebook

Source: Counterpunch
“No one knows who will live this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development, entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.”  Max Weber, 1905

On November 12 Facebook, Inc. filed its 178th patent application for a consumer profiling technique the company calls “inferring household income for users of a social networking system.”
trigger more text

“The amount of information gathered from users,” explain Facebook programmers Justin Voskuhl and Ramesh Vyaghrapuri in their patent application, “is staggering — information describing recent moves to a new city, graduations, births, engagements, marriages, and the like.” Facebook and other so-called tech companies have been warehousing all of this information since their respective inceptions. In Facebook’s case, its data vault includes information posted as early as 2004, when the site first went live. Now in a single month the amount of information forever recorded by Facebook —dinner plans, vacation destinations, emotional states, sexual activity, political views, etc.— far surpasses what was recorded during the company’s first several years of operation. And while no one outside of the company knows for certain, it is believed that Facebook has amassed one of the widest and deepest databases in history. Facebook has over 1,189,000,000 “monthly active users” around the world as of October 2013, providing considerable width of data. And Facebook has stored away trillions and trillions of missives and images, and logged other data about the lives of this billion plus statistical sample of humanity. Adjusting for bogus or duplicate accounts it all adds up to about 1/7th of humanity from which some kind of data has been recorded.

According to Facebook’s programmers like Voskuhl and Vyaghrapuri, of all the clever uses they have already applied this pile of data toward, Facebook has so far “lacked tools to synthesize this information about users for targeting advertisements based on their perceived income.” Now they have such a tool thanks to the retention and analysis of variable the company’s positivist specialists believe are correlated with income levels.

They’ll have many more tools within the next year to run similar predictions. Indeed, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, and the hundreds of smaller tech lesser-known tech firms that now control the main portals of social, economic, and political life on the web (which is now to say everywhere as all economic and much social activity is made cyber) are only getting started. The Big Data analytics revolutions has barely begun, and these firms are just beginning to tinker with rational-instrumental methods of predicting and manipulating human behavior.

There are few, if any, government regulations restricting their imaginations at this point. Indeed, the U.S. President himself is a true believer in Big Data; the brain of Obama’s election team was a now famous “cave” filled with young Ivy League men (and a few women) sucking up electioneering information and crunching demographic and consumer data to target individual voters with appeals timed to maximize the probability of a vote for the new Big Blue, not IBM, but the Democratic Party’s candidate of “Hope” and “Change.” The halls of power are enraptured by the potential of rational-instrumental methods paired with unprecedented access to data that describes the social lives of hundreds of millions.

Facebook’s intellectual property portfolio reads like cliff notes summarizing the aspirations of all corporations in capitalist modernity; to optimize efficiency in order to maximize profits and reduce or externalize risk. Unlike most other corporations, and unlike previous phases in the development of rational bureaucracies, Facebook and its tech peers have accumulated never before seen quantities of information about individuals and groups. Recent breakthroughs in networked computing make analysis of these gigantic data sets fast and cheap. Facebook’s patent holdings are just a taste of what’s arriving here and now.

The way you type, the rate, common mistakes, intervals between certain characters, is all unique, like your fingerprint, and there are already cyber robots that can identify you as you peck away at keys. Facebook has even patented methods of individual identification with obviously cybernetic overtones, where the machine becomes an appendage of the person. U.S. Patents 8,306,256, 8,472,662, and 8,503,718, all filed within the last year, allow Facebook’s web robots to identify a user based on the unique pixelation and other characteristics of their smartphone’s camera. Identification of the subject is the first step toward building a useful data set to file among the billion or so other user logs. Then comes analysis, then prediction, then efforts to influence a parting of money.

Many Facebook patents pertain to advertising techniques that are designed and targeted, and continuously redesigned with ever-finer calibrations by robot programs, to be absorbed by the gazes of individuals as they scroll and swipe across their Facebook feeds, or on third party web sites.

Speaking of feeds, U.S. Patent 8,352,859, Facebook’s system for “Dynamically providing a feed of stories about a user of a social networking system” is used by the company to organize the constantly updated posts and activities inputted by a user’s “friends.” Of course embedded in this system are means of inserting advertisements. According to Facebook’s programmers, a user’s feeds are frequently injected with “a depiction of a product, a depiction of a logo, a display of a trademark, an inducement to buy a product, an inducement to buy a service, an inducement to invest, an offer for sale, a product description, trade promotion, a survey, a political message, an opinion, a public service announcement, news, a religious message, educational information, a coupon, entertainment, a file of data, an article, a book, a picture, travel information, and the like.” That’s a long list for sure, but what gets injected is more often than not whatever will boost revenues for Facebook.

The advantage here, according to Facebook, is that “rather than having to initiate calls or emails to learn news of another user, a user of a social networking website may passively receive alerts to new postings by other users.” The web robot knows best. Sit back and relax and let sociality wash over you, passively. This is merely one of Facebook’s many “systems for tailoring connections between various users” so that these connections ripple with ads uncannily resonant with desires and needs revealed in the quietly observed flow of e-mails, texts, images, and clicks captured forever in dark inaccessible servers of Facebook, Google and the like. These communications services are free in order to control the freedom of data that might otherwise crash about randomly, generating few opportunities for sales.

Where this fails Facebook ratchets up the probability of influencing the user to behave as a predictable consumer. “Targeted advertisements often fail to earn a user’s trust in the advertised product,” explain Facebook’s programmers in U.S. Patent 8,527,344, filed in September of this year. “For example, the user may be skeptical of the claims made by the advertisement. Thus, targeted advertisements may not be very effective in selling an advertised product.” Facebook’s computer programmers who now profess mastery over sociological forces add that even celebrity endorsements are viewed with skepticism by the savvy citizen of the modulated Internet. They’re probably right.

Facebook’s solution is to mobilize its users as trusted advertisers in their own right. “Unlike advertisements, most users seek and read content generated by their friends within the social networking system; thus,” concludes Facebook’s mathematicians of human inducement, “advertisements generated by a friend of the user are more likely to catch the attention of the user, increasing the effectiveness of the advertisement.” That Facebook’s current So-And-So-likes-BrandX ads are often so clumsy and ineffective does not negate the qualitative shift in this model of advertising and the possibilities of un-freedom it evokes.

Forget iPhones and applications, the tech industry’s core consumer product is now advertising. Their essential practice is mass surveillance conducted in real time through continuous and multiple sensors that pass, for most people, entirely unnoticed. The autonomy and unpredictability of the individual —in Facebook’s language the individual is the “user”— is their fundamental business problem. Reducing autonomy via surveillance and predictive algorithms that can placate existing desires, and even stimulate and mold new desires is the tech industry’s reason for being. Selling their capacious surveillance and consumer stimulus capabilities to the highest bidder is the ultimate end.

Sounds too dystopian? Perhaps, and this is by no means the world we live in, not yet. It is, however, a tendency rooted in the tech economy. The advent of mobile, hand-held, wirelessly networked computers, called “smartphones,” is still so new that the technology, and its services feel like a parallel universe, a new layer of existence added upon our existing social relationships, business activities, and political affiliations. In many ways it feels liberating and often playful. Our devices can map geographic routes, identify places and things, provide information about almost anything in real time, respond to our voices, and replace our wallets. Who hasn’t consulted “Dr. Google” to answer a pressing question? Everyone and everything is seemingly within reach and there is a kind of freedom to this utility.

Most of Facebook’s “users” have only been registered on the web site since 2010, and so the quintessential social network feels new and fun, and although perhaps fraught with some privacy concerns, it does not altogether fell like a threat to the autonomy of the individual. To say it is, is a cliche sci-fi nightmare narrative of tech-bureaucracy, and we all tell one another that the reality is more complex.

Privacy continues, however, too be too narrowly conceptualized as a liberal right against incursions of government, and while the tech companies have certainly been involved in a good deal of old-fashioned mass surveillance for the sake of our federal Big Brother, there’s another means of dissolving privacy that is more fundamental to the goals of the tech companies and more threatening to social creativity and political freedom.

Georgetown University law professor Julie Cohen notes that pervasive surveillance is inimical to the spaces of privacy that are required for liberal democracy, but she adds importantly, that the surveillance and advertising strategies of the tech industry goes further.

“A society that permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures, which dampen and modulate behavioral variability, cannot hope to maintain a vibrant tradition of cultural and technical innovation,” writes Cohen in a forthcoming Harvard Law Review article.

“Modulation” is Cohen’s term for the tech industry’s practice of using algorithms and other logical machine operations to mine an individual’s data so as to continuously personalize information streams. Facebook’s patents are largely techniques of modulation, as are Google’s and the rest of the industry leaders. Facebook conducts meticulous surveillance on users, collects their data, tracks their movements on the web, and feeds the individual specific content that is determined to best resonate with their desires, behaviors, and predicted future movements. The point is to perfect the form and function of the rational-instrumental bureaucracy as defined by Max Weber: to constantly ratchet up efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. If they succeed in their own terms, the tech companies stand to create a feedback loop made perfectly to fit each an every one of us, an increasingly closed systems of personal development in which the great algorithms in the cloud endlessly tailor the psychological and social inputs of humans who lose the gift of randomness and irrationality.

“It is modulation, not privacy, that poses the greater threat to innovative practice,” explains Cohen. “Regimes of pervasively distributed surveillance and modulation seek to mold individual preferences and behavior in ways that reduce the serendipity and the freedom to tinker on which innovation thrives.” Cohen has pointed out the obvious irony here, not that it’s easy to miss; the tech industry is uncritically labeled America’s hothouse of innovation, but it may in fact be killing innovation by disenchanting the world and locking inspiration in an cage.

If there were limits to the reach of the tech industry’s surveillance and stimuli strategies it would indeed be less worrisome. Only parts of our lives would be subject to this modulation, and it could therefore benefit us. But the industry aspires to totalitarian visions in which universal data sets are constantly mobilized to transform an individual’s interface with society, family, the economy, and other institutions. The tech industry’s luminaries are clear in their desire to observe and log everything, and use every “data point” to establish optimum efficiency in life as the pursuit of consumer happiness. Consumer happiness is, in turn, a step toward the rational pursuit of maximum corporate profit. We are told that the “Internet of things” is arriving, that soon every object will have embedded within it a computer that is networked to the sublime cloud, and that the physical environment will be made “smart” through the same strategy of modulation so that we might be made free not just in cyberspace, but also in the meatspace.

Whereas the Internet of the late 1990s matured as an archipelago of innumerable disjointed and disconnected web sites and databases, today’s Internet is gripped by a handful of giant companies that observe much of the traffic and communications, and which deliver much of the information from an Android phone or laptop computer, to distant servers, and back. The future Internet being built by the tech giants —putting aside the Internet of things for the moment— is already well into its beta testing phase. It’s a seamlessly integrated quilt of web sites and apps that all absorb “user” data, everything from clicks and keywords to biometric voice identification and geolocation.

United States Patent 8,572,174, another of Facebook’s recent inventions, allows the company to personalize a web page outside of Facebook’s own system with content from Facebook’s databases. Facebook is selling what the company calls its “rich set of social information” to third party web sites in order to “provide personalized content for their users based on social information about those users that is maintained by, or otherwise accessible to, the social networking system.” Facebook’s users generated this rich social information, worth many billions of dollars as recent quarterly earnings of the company attest.

In this way the entire Internet becomes Facebook. The totalitarian ambition here is obvious, and it can be read in the securities filings, patent applications, and other non-sanitized business documents crafted by the tech industry for the financial analysts who supply the capital for further so-called innovation. Everywhere you go on the web, with your phone or tablet, you’re a “user,” and your social network data will be mined every second by every application, site, and service to “enhance your experience,” as Facebook and others say. The tech industry’s leaders aim to expand this into the physical world, creating modulated advertising and environmental experiences as cameras and sensors track our movements.

Facebook and the rest of the tech industry fear autonomy and unpredictability. The ultimate expression of these irrational variables that cannot be mined with algorithmic methods is absence from the networks of surveillance in which data is collected.

One of Facebook’s preventative measures is United States Patent 8,560,962, “promoting participation of low-activity users in social networking system.” This novel invention devised by programmers in Facebook’s Palo Alto and San Francisco offices involves a “process of inducing interactions,” that are meant to maximize the amount of “user-generated content” on Facebook by getting lapsed users to return, and stimulating all users to produce more and more data. User generated content is, after all, worth billions. Think twice before you hit “like” next time, or tap that conspicuously placed “share” button; a machine likely put that content and interaction before your eyes after a logical operation determined it to have the highest probability of tempting you to add to the data stream, thereby increasing corporate revenues.

Facebook’s patents on techniques of modulating “user” behavior are few compared to the real giants of the tech industry’s surveillance and influence agenda. Amazon, Microsoft, and of course Google hold some of the most fundamental patents using personal data to attempt to shape an individual’s behavior into predictable consumptive patterns. Smaller specialized firms like Choicestream and Gist Communications have filed dozens more applications for modulation techniques. The rate of this so-called innovation is rapidly telescoping.

Perhaps we do know who will live in the iron cage. It might very well be a cage made of our own user generated content, paradoxically ushering in a new era of possibilities in shopping convenience and the delivery of satisfactory experiences even while it eradicates many degrees of chance, and pain, and struggle (the motive forces of human progress) in a robot-powered quest to have us construct identities and relationships that yield to prediction and computer-generated suggestion. Defense of individual privacy and autonomy today is rightly motivated by the reach of an Orwellian security state (the NSA, FBI, CIA). This surveillance changes our behavior by chilling us, by telling us we are always being watched by authority. Authority thereby represses in us whatever might happen to be defined as “crime,” or any anti-social behavior at the moment. But what about the surveillance that does not seek to repress us, the watching computer eyes and ears that instead hope to stimulate a particular set of monetized behaviors in us with the intimate knowledge gained from our every online utterance, even our facial expressions and finger movements?

Darwin Bond-Graham, a contributing editor to CounterPunch, is a sociologist and author who lives and works in Oakland, CA. His essay on economic inequality in the “new” California economy appears in theJuly issue of CounterPunch magazine. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion