Assignment 4

COMMENTS

Freedom has become a central issue of the internet and open source coding. Biella Coleman and Mako Hill, in the article “How Free became Open and Everything Else under the Sun,” discuss how open source allows anyone to “use, distribute, modify and redistribute derivative versions” (Coleman & Hill, par. 4) of open source code; we are free to do almost anything. However, in many ways, this sense of freedom fits into Galloway’s conception of our society as a control society, fueled by technological developments, as discussed in Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization. But open source and Coleman’s take on it also serve to expand on Galloway’s discussion, suggesting problems with the theory and hinting at a new direction for society.

In the introduction to his book, Galloway discusses the theories of Foucalt and Deleuze that develop the concept of a control society, and expands on them with the example of the internet. He describes our current society as a “distributed network” that is enabled by technology like digital computers and is managed by a system of protocols (Galloway p. 3). These protocols are essential to his theory, as “protocol is a technique for achieving voluntary regulation within a contingent environment… that allows control to exist within a heterogeneous material milieu” (Galloway p. 7-8), and, “by design, protocols such as the Internet Protocol [IP] cannot be centralized” (Galloway p. 11). As protocols are required for communication within the distributed network, they become a self-enforcing system of control; “protocol is to control societies as the panopticon is to disciplinary societies” (Galloway p. 13).

Coleman’s description of open source, at first glance, seems entirely outside of Galloway’s control society. Free and Open Source Software’s (FOSS) “non-discrimination” in terms of politics and its “broadly defined freedom” “enables the easy adoption of FOSS technologies and facilitates its translatability” – a description that doesn’t sound like the overarching (although non-hierarchical) control of protocol (Coleman & Hill par. 5-6). However, at its base, FOSS fits the control model – with more freedom, and with more control. FOSS is governed by guidelines like the Open Source Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Richard Stallman’s Free Software Definition (Coleman & Hill par. 1). Users participate in a distributed network of open source code, and they are almost entirely free to do whatever they want. However, by nature of being a part of the network, they are subject to rules – protocols, essentially – that govern how FOSS can be used, modified and distributed. This is control at the most basic level; users gladly shoulder the protocol of FOSS in the name of freedom. Resistance is not prevented by a sovereign or a collection of disciplinary powers, but rather by the users themselves and by the nature of the distributed network (i.e. the rules that govern interaction within the network).

This expanded freedom – with general, underlying rules – actually expands control further than protocol. Galloway makes a note of Deleuze’s comment: “It’s true that, even before control societies are fully in place, forms of delinquency or resistance (two different things) are also appearing. Computer piracy and viruses, for example, will replace strikes and what the nineteenth century called ‘sabotage’” (Galloway p. 16). However, as Coleman notes, nearly everyone adopts FOSS. With its freedom and flexibility, FOSS can be interpreted as a capitalist, corporate market tool, providing companies like IBM with “market agility, consumer choice and an ‘improved bottom line’” (Coleman & Hill par. 9). It can also become a “revolutionary example of mutual aid, structural openness and the power of collaboration” to individuals or groups that specifically seek to “choose the thing which has the least chance of benefiting any corporation” (Coleman & Hill par. 11-12). FOSS seems to be control without resistance, as those that would resist do not see it as an object of control.

Of course, resistance is always possible. For FOSS, though, resistance takes the form of withdrawing freedom. Unlike protocol like TCP/IP, which is resisted by breaking the protocol or altering the code, modification and redistribution are encouraged by FOSS. The only way to disobey or resist is to “close” the software: hide it, privatize it, or prevent modification. Previous models of society have been fought against by providing oneself more freedom, like the freedom to rebel against a sovereign, the freedom to strike against a corporation, and the freedom to break or evade protocol. Is it a rebellious freedom, in the case of FOSS, to take away one’s own freedom?

Galloway claims that the power of protocol is that it takes over “the former weapons of the Leftists – celebration of difference, attack on essentialism, and so forth” (Galloway p. 26). He quotes Hardt and Negri in saying that “this new enemy [(protocol)] not only is resistant to the old weapons but actually thrives on them, and thus joins its would-be antagonists in applying them to the fullest” (Galloway p. 26). FOSS takes an even further step: it is a “dynamic iconic tactic” (Coleman & Hill par. 3) that has “enabled a diversity of ideas and practices of openness” (Coleman & Hill par. 18). It not only engages the resistors of “old weapons,” but also the delinquents and resistors of protocol; you can’t hack or pirate open source code, as that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do.

Does this put us on the frontier of a new society? FOSS suggests an “ultimate” development of control, where to resist the control is to resist freedom. Perhaps this is not so much new as it is an elaboration of the developments of protocol; just as “protocological control is… an improvement over other modes of social control,” perhaps open source control, or free control, is an improvement over protocological control (Galloway p. 17).