Ethan Zuckerman is a professor at the University of Massachusetts, where he teaches Public Policy, Communication and Information. He’s starting a new research center called the Institute for Digital Public Infrastructure. Over the years, he’s been a tech startup guy, a non-profit founder and co-founder at globalvoices.org, and throughout it all, a blogger.
I heard him speak at re:publica 2015 in Berlin about «why the system is broken – and that’s the good news». A very inspiring talk about how the all pervading mistrust in today’s societies can be a powerful positive force. Mistrust can be corrosive, encouraging us to turn away from politics or from public life. But mistrust can be a powerful positive force, motivating us to take up the task of keeping watch on those in power, or building new institutions that are more just than those we mistrust. Mistrust may be our most valuable civic asset, if we can learn to harness it to change the world for the better.
Ethan Zuckerman also has his own podcast: Reimagining the Internet. He recently had EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, as a guest on his show. You can find the link to the podcast as well as a transcript in the credits below.
It seems like everywhere we turn we see dystopian stories about technology’s impact on our lives and our futures — from tracking-based surveillance capitalism to street level government surveillance to the dominance of a few large platforms choking innovation to the growing pressure by authoritarian governments to control what we see and say — the landscape can feel bleak. Exposing and articulating these problems is important, but so is envisioning and then building a better future. That’s where this podcast comes in.
Credits
- Pictures courtesy of Mitch Mckee and EFF
- Electronic Frontier Foundation Podcast
Transcript
Cindy Cohen: Welcome to How to Fix the Internet. I’m Cindy Cohen, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We’re off for a couple of weeks working on our next batch of shows, but I didn’t want to leave you without something to listen to. So here’s a podcast hosted by our friend and recent guest, Ethan Zuckerman. His podcast is called Reimagining the Internet, and we’re right in sync. In this episode, he talks with EFF’s own director for International Freedom of Expression, Jillian York. I think you’ll really enjoy it.
Ethan Zuckerman: Welcome to Re-imagining the Internet from the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. We’re talking to researchers, techies, activists, academics and journalists about what’s wrong with the Internet and how to fix it. I’m your host, Ethan Zuckerman. Hello, everybody. Welcome to Re-imagining the Internet. I remain Ethan Zuckerman here with you. And I want to introduce my dear friend Jillian York. Jill is the director of International Freedom of Expression for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She is an activist, an author, a thinker about questions of human rights on the Internet. Most recently, she is the author of the really excellent silicon values, which I have been enjoying. Jill and I know each other from way, way back. We worked together on the Global Voices Project. We worked together at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard. We’ve co-authored papers and book chapters together. So we are longtime friends and collaborators. But Jill, part of what was so exciting about this book for me is that it’s really the story of a journey that you’ve been on for the last ten years or so. Really longer than that, maybe closer to 20 as an advocate for freedom of expression. Talk to me about the title. What’s the difference between silicon values and the values that you end up holding forward as a human rights and freedom of expression advocate?
Jillian York: Yeah. So I mean, the way that I see it, at least from my view of the world, which is very US and EU centric, with a little bit of the Middle East and North Africa mixed in, is that we’ve kind of got like three sets of competing values. You’ve got US values which tend to dominate the world based on the First Amendment, in particular, when it comes to speech, you’ve got universal human rights based values, which a lot of the world adheres to. And then you’ve got silicon values, which are the very particular ideologies of a select few really privileged individuals, some of whom, like Mark Zuckerberg, have very little contact with the general public. And these values tend to not really reflect what the rest of the world thinks.
Ethan Zuckerman: And that’s a really interesting twist because I think in many cases people are used to this idea that we have a conflict between maybe US values, which tend to be centered around freedom of expression, maybe a more European value set which takes more seriously, might be willing to sacrifice some freedom of expression for privacy. But you see the sort of Facebook, Twitter at all values even breaking away from the American values set. What are the sort of pillars of that value set when when we’re looking at Zuckerbergian values, because you do really have it in for Facebook within this book. Give me a sense of what those values and what that code looks like.
Jillian York: Sure. And I mean, the reason I have it in for Facebook over other platforms is that they don’t really listen. That’s what really sets them apart. We’ll get to that later. But yeah, I mean, the Zuckerbergian values in particular, and they’re not just attributable to him. It’s the people on his executive team, the people he’s put around himself over the years. They favor political expression over all other types of expression. They don’t weigh harm in kind of trying to assess what should or should not be allowed on the platform or where they should guide individuals. And they’re very, very prudish when it comes down to it. They’ve got a very you know, despite all of Facebook’s proclamations about supporting the LGBTQ+ community, the rules themselves actually have a very old school binary view of gender and a very conservative view of gender and what is appropriate in terms of that kind of expression and in terms of sexual expression. And the really interesting thing about that drives me so absolutely nuts is the way that they blame it on their global community in the rules themselves. They say, you know, due to some of the sensitivities of our global community. So it’s saying, you know, well, because we have, I kind of shorthand this to say Saudi users, but it’s not just them. Of course, because we have these users, we’re not going to let the rest of you express yourselves. And that to me there’s nothing universal about that.
Ethan Zuckerman: About a decade ago, the Arab Spring swept through a region that you’ve spent a lot of time in, that you care very deeply about. Protests on and offline platforms like Facebook really celebrated their role in making that moment possible. You have a moment where Sheryl Sandberg talks proudly about Facebook’s role in Egypt. Talk a little bit about how these movements around the Arab Spring used digital media, use these online public spaces and how they were thwarted by them.
Jillian York: Yeah, you know, I mean, you you and I, well, you play a big part in my life around this because you were the one who introduced me to what is now the Berkman Klein Center back then is the Berkman Center for Internet Society. And I started working there in I always mess this up in either 2007 or 2008, I think it was eight. And, you know, at the time, Berkman was really interested in trying to understand the blogosphere, these various blogging communities, and particularly, I think the Egyptian community is one of the big focal points. And so the Global Voices meeting that happened that summer introduced me to a lot of people from the region. I already had some Arabic under my belt, had been living in Morocco. And so really just, you know, connected me in a very meaningful way through these friendships that I made. And so the Arab uprisings come around and. Facebook in particular was used in the first couple of chapters of the book really get into this. But Facebook in particular was used to advertise to promote the January 25th uprising that occurred. It was take to the streets. And as you know and I’ll share the story for everyone else. You and I were kind of involved in a very bizarre way in that, because in November 2010, a month before Tunisia rose up and over Thanksgiving weekend in the US, Facebook actually took down that page, the page that would eventually call for that, that protest and so on.
Ethan Zuckerman: We are all [?]
Jillian York: So yeah, exactly. And I mean, I think it’s also really important to note the book draws this link that [?] was a victim of police brutality in Alexandria. And so there’s a big connection across the past decade of the role that these companies have played in in police brutality specifically, and shutting conversations around that down. But back then, in November 2010, we we got involved because Facebook had removed that page and they removed it not because it was promoting violence, not because it was doing anything wrong, but for a much sillier reason, because its administrators were not using their birth names and for very good reason. And Facebook was always very stubborn about this. We brought it to their attention back then. I raised it along with many other people over the years. But Mark Zuckerberg’s very, very particular idea of identity and I’m not going to get the quote exactly right, but he believes that it’s a lack of integrity to have more than one identity. Because of that, this page was taken down and we had to fight to get it restored. And they eventually found a solution where someone using her real name, her birth name, stepped in. And so then the uprising happens, the uprisings happen. And these companies kind of flip and are very, very happy to take credit for being the tool that enabled widespread promotion of these particular demonstrations. And I think that that really just kind of shows how they think, when it’s profitable, when it’s when it’s good media, when it’s well covered. They’re happy to take credit, but otherwise they’re very strict about sticking to the rules.
Ethan Zuckerman: There’s a bit of a sort of secret history in all of this, right, where you’re sort of revealing a lot of these conversations that happen behind the scenes. Our friend Wael Ghonim, who was one of the administrators of that page, you make the argument that one of the reasons he was able to get that page back was that he was a Google employee and that it was sort of an inside Silicon Valley thing. You know, if there hadn’t been people like you who are sort of known to Silicon Valley, if there hadn’t been Wael, who was already known to Silicon Valley, it would have been perhaps a different outcome in terms of that particular page. And you sort of speculate a little bit about the role of that page as a mobilizer. What? Talk a little bit about maybe in Syria, for instance, where the speech situation got so complicated as we started getting into the Syrian civil war. Are these platforms were these platforms a good place to document what was going on in history?
Jillian York: Yeah. So in the beginning, you know, I mean, obviously Syria is a really hotly contested topic and I’m sure I’m going to get blowback for my views on it, which is always complicated. But you know, the short version of it is that in March 2012 when some of our friends took to the streets in Damascus and it was really like 25, 30 people, if I recall correctly, way back then, these were really non-violent protests. They started as kind of an echoing of what had happened in Tunisia and Egypt. And after some young boys in Daraa province were arrested for their, I can’t remember exactly what they did, but they were arrested. The town kind of rose up in anger, and that’s when the violence started and spread very quickly. And there’s all sorts of precipitating factors. Of course, I’m not a Syria expert by any means, but what happened with the platforms was really sad because in the beginning I remember being at a conference, you may have been there as well somewhere in California. And I remember there was this really strong feeling from these platforms that they needed to be there for the sake of documentation. And so they changed their rules and YouTube in particular changed their rules to allow things even like beheading videos because they recognized the importance of this documentation. But as the Islamic State grew, the companies fell under pressure from the US government at first and then other governments and the public to it’s always to do more about terrorism.
Jillian York: And as a result they really flip. They did a 180 and started taking down things that would be considered documentarian in nature. And over the years it’s only gotten worse. What we’ve seen is Syrians without many, you know, not much access to other tools. And I think that this is an important thing to note, because some of the arguments that we get back, especially from the Western public, is, well, why do Syrians need to use YouTube? Why can’t they create their own site? Well, you’re in a war zone. It’s not that simple. And YouTube is right there on your phone and it’s not like Vimeo and Dailymotion or any better about this. So Syrians use YouTube to document what’s happening on the ground. Libyans as well. We’ve already seen evidence collected on these platforms, particularly by Syrian Archive. Mnemonic is the organization that runs that we’ve already seen it used in war crimes tribunals. But these companies because of the Islamic State, because of Al Qaida, because of the growing pressure around terrorism, they have sort of failed to take this into account. And they’re increasingly using automation, which detects things in a way that is not nuanced and therefore the content gets removed.
Ethan Zuckerman: So let’s unpack the history a little bit, right? So as we’re heading into the Arab Spring, these platforms generally don’t know that they’re being used as points of mobilisation. Right. Facebook is enormously important in Tunisia. It’s one of the few ways that video is getting out around the protests and then it’s being picked up and rebroadcast on Al Jazeera. It ends up being used in Egypt thanks to you and some other people behind the scenes sort of advocating for this to be out there. There is this wave, this brief period where the platforms have thoroughly embraced this. I’m remembering an experience of being contacted by friends in Bahrain who have posted footage of police firing live ammunition at protesters, and they’re just begging me to archive it as quickly as I can for fear that YouTube is going to take it down. And I do, of course, but YouTube, to their enormous credit, even without prompting from me or anybody else, keeps it up with a page saying, look, this is violent content. It would normally be outside of our terms of service, but it’s historically important. Then we’re going to leave it up. And then you’re saying there’s a move after that where they move in a different direction. You have this long and really thoughtful examination of what it means to be a terrorist group. Can you talk a little bit about sort of silicon values and those Washington DC determinations of who is on these various different terrorism lists?
Jillian York: Yeah, absolutely. And before I get into that, I just want to point out the one. It’s funny because the one platform you didn’t mention there was Twitter. And I think Twitter was the only one to have that awareness, primarily because of how Twitter had been used around Gaza in 2008 when when Gaza was attacked. And so Twitter had this very different view. And in fact, I remember in 2012, Twitter fighting, I guess not fighting, but publicly declaring the importance of leaving up terrorist groups because of the response they were getting from countries in the Global South. And the example I remember in particular, I don’t remember if I included it in the book or not, was that a Kenyan police chief had spoken on the record about the importance of al-Shabab being able to use Twitter because it helped them to track it, to track their movements. So Washington, D.C.’s view of terrorism is a very vengeful one. It’s who’s classified as a terrorist on the United States foreign terrorist organization list is based on who the US doesn’t like or who has attacked the United States. This is very different from the EU approach and even the UK approach as well as the UN approach, which is much narrower than all of them. And so, I mean, I there’s a lot of expertise here that I don’t know as well as some of the folks I quoted, Lisa Szymanski. I rely on her a lot for this and her excellent book on the politicization of the term. But basically the US list goes far overboard, in my opinion, and includes in a number of cases, groups which are state actors or semi-state actors. And Hezbollah’s the easiest example for me to talk about because I know Lebanon very well. Now Hezbollah is on the US list. They’re on the German list. They other countries make a distinction between their military wing and their political wing, but basically what this means for the platforms. So the platforms have always, as far as I can tell, but they never admit it publicly. They’ve always followed US law. Now, whether they’re required to do so or not is kind of an ongoing legal question. There is case law around this, and when a group is additionally sanctioned by the Treasury Department in the way that some Iranian groups are, then there’s much more of a legal liability. But for the most part, this is still up in the air.
Jillian York: And yet, despite that, these platforms have taken a very conservative approach, Twitter being the exception, although they’ve kind of changed over the years. And that conservative approach means that they not only take down content posted by the terrorist groups, which would be a slightly reasonable position, I think. But they remove most things that are even dialogue about them. We’ve seen that they make exceptions. There’s a report a couple of weeks ago from The Guardian on making exceptions in Myanmar, in the Middle East and North Africa. But for the most part, this means that people in countries like Lebanon, where Hezbollah, like it or not, plays an important role in politics. People there can’t necessarily talk about that. And worse yet, Lebanon is a very complicated history, as we know from what’s been happening in the past couple of years there. But some of the political groups there, some of the political parties have been and still are also engaged in violence. And so the US and the companies based in the US are picking and choosing winners in that fight. And that to me is just the antithesis of how these universal values should work.
Ethan Zuckerman: Is this a question of geographic concentration, i.e. all these people are in Silicon Valley and don’t necessarily have the knowledge on the ground of the dynamics of a place like Lebanon or Myanmar, where Facebook has has really had a difficult time? Or is this more a question of scale? Is it just difficult to maintain a digital public sphere for hundreds of millions of people?
Jillian York: I would say both. So on the one hand, I mean, it’s always going to be a problem of scale. It is very difficult to maintain a platform for millions, billions of people in the case of Facebook. And even with the best of intentions, which I’ll get to in a second, I’m not sure that it’s ever going to be possible to get this right. However, I would say that these companies don’t have the best intentions, they don’t have the best practices. And in Facebook’s case and again, I’ll focus on them, but I think all of these companies have issues. In Facebook’s case, they haven’t really tried. Their idea of diversity is to find some Ivy League educated person who happens to have the right ethnic background and kind of just install that person in a given region. And that’s not how you do this. You have to have very real inclusion. You have to have people who have worked and lived and grown up in a country, people of diverse backgrounds, not just in terms of their ethnicity, but in terms of their education level, their where they went to school, their gender. All of that is really important.
Jillian York: And that’s not how Facebook sees it. If you look at the very top, the executive team, you’ve got Zuckerberg and Sandberg and Schrag and Richard Allen. All these folks have been embedded in this company from almost day one. But then you’ve also got people from UK government and US law enforcement, and those are the people at the top. And when you’ve got those people at the top, that’s one very specific and problematic way of viewing the world. And then, of course, you know, you’ve got great folks working in some of these regions. Abella Jacob is one of them. We both know her well. I’ve got nothing but the utmost respect for her, but from my understanding and didn’t hear this from her, but my understanding of how these regional offices worked is that they’re under resourced. They don’t have control over the actual decision making and in some cases they’re just figureheads. And I think that that’s really the problem. It’s deeply, deeply structural. We see some of the companies like Twitter doing a slightly better job on this, but even then still getting it wrong because they’re not making the effort and particularly investment in getting it right.
Ethan Zuckerman: So one of the things I found super interesting, just in the structure of the book, it really opens up talking about this problem of human rights, talking about this problem of freedom of expression, really going through some of these conflicts in the Middle East, going through these questions of how difficult it is to understand what’s going on on the ground when you don’t have a regional office or you have a regional office, but you’re not really listening to it. But then you have this long discourse on something that I know that you have crossed swords with Facebook on, which is the female presenting nipple. So I’m interested both in the story, but also in sort of how this fits into your larger arc of talking about human rights and freedom of expression. Because I think a lot of readers find themselves they’re really sort of deep into this discussion of how Facebook is dealing with terrorism. And then we find ourselves dealing with what at first can feel like a different topic, but you end up arguing that it’s really fundamentally connected and connected to this idea of who gets to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech.
Jillian York: Yeah, you know, it’s funny because I’ve been talking about this for a long time. And I mean, let me just say, where I come from this on is I was raised in a very, very, very liberal environment. I was in the musical hair when I was like, I don’t know, 16 has a nude scene. I wasn’t allowed to be nude. But like, let me tell you, like in the, you know, after parties and stuff, we were all just getting naked, going swimming, things like that. And so I was raised with this not in a very American way, but I guess a very sort of northeast New England hippie kind of way. And so my comfort with the human body is essential to my views on free expression. Now, that said, you know, it’s funny because over the years I get a lot of pushback from conservatives, quite obviously, but also from folks on the left, that this just isn’t an important issue. And it really it really is. I don’t think that, you know, I can’t underestimate how vital it is to humanity. So for a number of reasons, I got to unpack this. On the one hand, you’ve got things like the expression of breastfeeding moms, folks who’ve had mastectomies, folks who are trans folks who are nonbinary, etc.. And for them, a lot of this is absolutely vital expression. It’s also vital expression for a lot of women who, for whatever reason, choose to use their body in their art, in their making a living, etc., including sex workers.
Jillian York: So that’s a huge part of it. But then another part of it that really just kind of gets me is the idea that women’s bodies are sacred and sexual at the same time. And so we can’t show the women’s nipple now what even is a woman’s nipple on the one hand? And then this is what’s really interesting about how content moderation works is because over the years these companies have had to tie themselves in knots, basically to figure out how to moderate the nipple. So I used to use this as an example of how automation works, because I’ll just explain this quickly. Automation is it’s easier when you’re talking about something that’s easily classifiable. And Dave Willner is quoted in the book about this. He’s one of Facebook’s early architects. But imagine you’ve got a ball now, you’ve got a ball, and then you’ve got a square. That’s easily binary. It’s classifiable. And that’s how Facebook and many other companies treat nipples. They say, okay, this is women’s nipples, this is men’s nipples or whatever. And that’s kind of the problem is because, number one, if we believe that gender exists on a spectrum, and I very much do, then you’ve got a problem in kind of identifying what’s a woman in the first place. And we see this in the example from the book with Courtney Daemon, a trans woman who using Instagram a Facebook property, kind of she was amazing.
Jillian York: I was so happy to have found her and she documents her transition. And at what point Instagram decided that she was a woman. And so when I talk to the companies about it, it’s always hard to get a straight answer. Sometimes they blame it on their conservative audiences. But the quote that I got in the book and this was kind of amazing because it was just a casual conversation with somebody who had one foot out the door. She just said very plainly, The reason that Facebook bans nipples is because your feed would be a bunch of nipples all the time. And I was like, okay, number one, there are male nipples on my feed all the time and I don’t want that either. But number two, if you’ve got all this automation technology, why not just allow me to be the one to flip the switch instead of you deciding for me what’s acceptable? And that’s really what it comes down to that and the fact that I, unlike Facebook, I don’t inherently believe that political expression is more important than cultural expression, whether, again, whether we’re talking about sexual health, sex work or just I want to be topless on my feed. Why can’t I do that? And I think being in Germany is really exacerbated this for me because not a day goes bye in the summer where I don’t see somebody’s nipples.
Ethan Zuckerman: So I think that’s such an interesting point. I think the way that your linking political and cultural expression is something that’s often pretty unfamiliar to American audiences. We’re used to this idea that political expression is sacrosanct. We’re going to protect the opinion there. We’re used to this idea that cultural expression is also commercial expression, and so we’re used to this idea that maybe there are special rules for HBO, but for the most part, cultural expression is going to be within these certain boundaries. Maybe we’ll make certain exceptions for, you know, Rubenesque nudes. But I think you’re making the point that they’re the same thing and that what’s tricky about a Facebook, a YouTube, so on and so forth is that by putting these rules in place, they’re really confining the universe of what’s possible to express at scale. You can still express these things. You just might not be able to get the sort of audience that you would need to have a cultural impact without staying within those lines.
Jillian York: Yeah. So, you know, last summer when I was finishing up the book, I got really into Hamilton, right? Like I was late to the game. I got into it when it came out on Disney. I’m not going to lie, but I got deep into it and I was listening to it as I was writing. And what really struck me was how Alexander Hamilton was so key to the creation of American law, of American ideology. And yet what took him down was a sex scandal. And that was fascinating to me. I didn’t know that history. You know, I can tell you that we don’t learn much in public school in the US, or at least not where I was, but I didn’t know any of that history. And it was really interesting to me that I mean, I don’t think that that’s what sanctified that as an idea. But at the same time, you know, oops, you make one mistake and this is kind of how society is today still. I mean, I’m not talking about the really awful stuff, the stuff that involves minors, but American ideology is very, very unaccepting of any kind of expression outside of that norm. And I think that that’s what really, really bothered me. And that kind of was where I ended up. It was Hamilton that kind of pulled all these ideas together for me. And so, yeah, I mean, I got asked a couple of weeks ago what I think I mentioned this in the book that if Facebook had been built in Germany, it would be very different.
Jillian York: And I got asked how and I’ll be frank about this, that German culture is much more accepting of sexuality, nudity, all of that expression. You can see it on the street in the summer. I mean, I was out the other day when it was really warm out and naked people really literally. But if Facebook were German, it would be much less accepting of violence. And that’s because of this country’s history. You wouldn’t be able to show swastikas. I mean, I don’t think you can now anyway, but there was a while where you could. And so all of this is cultural. All of it’s really dependent on the society where where certain values were shaped, certain ideologies were created. And yet I think that having these platforms be so US centric is I think that US ideology is much more an anomaly in the world. I think that the way that cultural I mean the fact that you can see Kim Kardashian’s rear end on Facebook, but you can’t see other types of nude expression and that really says it all because it’s commercialized all. So yeah, I mean, I guess that’s what it comes down to for me is of course there is no such thing as free speech absolutism. It’ll never be that way. But these platforms continue to really entrench US ideologies, create values in a very US centric way, and then export them to the rest of the world. And it really is colonialism in its barest sense.
Ethan Zuckerman: We had a wonderful interview on the show a couple of weeks back with the remarkable founders of Assembly Four, which is an Australian collective of sex workers and allies who built Zwitter [?] as an alternative to Twitter to make it sex worker friendly. And of course they’re doing this from a part of Australia where sex work is legal. They have the servers somewhere in Europe. They won’t tell us where because they are concerned about those questions of it. But even more than that, they’ve sort of found that they’re concerned about coming to the United States. They’re really worried that simply appearing in the US might open them to arrest, despite the fact that what they’re doing is running an open social network. So there is that way in which that hegemony sort of extends to control over physical space. You and I both did a lot of our formative intellectual work at a place like the Berkman Center, which really had a lot of these thoughts about sort of borderlessness and the Internet as its own sort of original space. You address in the book John Perry Barlow and these sort of dreams of borderlessness. Have we reached a point where we understand that borders aren’t going away and unfortunately, they’re still enormously powerful.
Jillian York: Oh, yes and no. So I mean, Barlow and all of those early visionaries had I mean, they were way ahead of their time in a lot of ways and thinking through these problems, which we’re still trying to solve. On the other hand, I mean, I don’t think that they properly foresaw the role that American capitalism would play in all of this. And I think and a lot of them are favorable toward American capitalism, you know, libertarian thinkers that saw the free market as being able to solve these problems of speech, which it had never has and never will. And so, yeah, I mean, I think I’m an optimist in the idea that we could still see a borderless world in the future. I’m very much an advocate against borders, but yeah, in terms of whether or not we’re going to see a borderless world, I mean, it’s up to us ultimately.
Ethan Zuckerman: Well, look on that sort of hopeful question. I just want to thank you. This is Jillian York, director of International Freedom of Expression for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, author of the excellent, the entertaining, the inspiring, the very much worth your time, Silicon Values. Thank you so much for being with us and reimagining the Internet.
Jillian York: Thank you, Ethan. It’s been a pleasure.
Ethan Zuckerman: Reimagining the Internet is hosted by me, Ethan Zuckerman, and produced by Mike Sugarman, who also composed this music. Follow us at publicinfrastructure.org to learn more about what we’re up to at the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure. And please subscribe to this podcast wherever you’re listening to it.
Schreibe einen Kommentar