Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of It could
Speaker 1: happen here once again. Who's still around myself Andrew and
Speaker 1: also joined with Garrison is here as well, and me mea,
Speaker 1: I'm also here. And of the things that I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about lately, because I've been reading a lot more fiction, UM,
Speaker 1: a lot of things and these sorts of sci fi's
Speaker 1: fair particularly UM some Activia, but the UM, some orcum,
Speaker 1: some Margaret Atwood, I recently read Orks and Creek. UM.
Speaker 1: I've just been thinking about a lot of these concepts
Speaker 1: that are presented in stories um in sci fi UM.
Speaker 1: And what is more sci fi than the idea of
Speaker 1: computers that sort of digital space, and what has become
Speaker 1: of the digital would um as of late as you know,
Speaker 1: and really since its inception, as capitalism has sort of
Speaker 1: chopped it up and privatized it and sequested it and
Speaker 1: monopolized it. As I think that it really um goes
Speaker 1: against what the principles of the Internet should be m
Speaker 1: in terms of how it is run, how it is structured,
Speaker 1: how it is organized. Because the Internet as a concept
Speaker 1: really brings together, um a variety of people, variety of
Speaker 1: spaces and backgrounds and intersections and I believe it would
Speaker 1: be a place of sharing, a place of collaboration, particularly
Speaker 1: since the sort of resources that might be um limited
Speaker 1: in the physical world, ah far more abundant in the
Speaker 1: digital world. Um. I'm thinking too, of like educational resources
Speaker 1: and otherwise, of course they are you know, infrastructural limitations.
Speaker 1: But on the cloud, you know, um, in cyberspace. And
Speaker 1: I cringe saying that because it makes me feel like
Speaker 1: a boomer. Um. You know, they have the ability to
Speaker 1: freely and easily copy and share and paste wherever and whenever,
Speaker 1: basically without many limitations. Um. And instead of really seizing
Speaker 1: that for what it could be, you know, we've we've
Speaker 1: turned it into this sort of um corporate feudalism. Um.
Speaker 1: We're all these uh digital margritcoporations, these social media giants
Speaker 1: basically have carved of the Internet into their own little
Speaker 1: you know, fiefdoms and dominated um the discourse, you know,
Speaker 1: dominated how we communicate with each other, how we tend
Speaker 1: to communicate each other bast in the main stream side
Speaker 1: of the internet. What has become to mein stream things
Speaker 1: what most people think of when they think of the Internet. Um,
Speaker 1: But I'm not a big fan of that. Idea of
Speaker 1: the Internet, that perception, that conception of the Internet in
Speaker 1: fact um as something that I have been thinking about
Speaker 1: and developing and discussing for the past couple of months
Speaker 1: and researching for the past couple of months. I really
Speaker 1: think that among all the other things that I've discussed
Speaker 1: unnecessary components in developing the commons, in creating and re
Speaker 1: establishing the commons, I think digital commons will be just
Speaker 1: as important because the commons, uh, the rather, the inclusion
Speaker 1: of the commons is what really kicked off the establishment
Speaker 1: of capitalism. I believe the re establishments of the commons
Speaker 1: will be required in that transition away from capitalism towards
Speaker 1: a more collective, more communal, um, more sustainable way of life.
Speaker 1: For those who um, I guess just tuning in this
Speaker 1: perhaps your first episode with me at least, or perhaps
Speaker 1: you've never seen any of the figures of my channel, UM,
Speaker 1: I'll take a moment to, you know, explain what exactly
Speaker 1: the commons are. The commons referred to the resources accessible
Speaker 1: to all members of a society, the totality of the
Speaker 1: material riches of that part of the world, of that world,
Speaker 1: regarded as the inheritance of humanity as a whole, something
Speaker 1: to be shared together the commons, or something that are
Speaker 1: based on common pool resources or cprs, which is any
Speaker 1: natural or man made system that is organized to benefit
Speaker 1: a group of people, but would provide diminished benefits to
Speaker 1: everyone if each person pursued their own self interest. And
Speaker 1: of course these resource systems, like I said, it could
Speaker 1: be natural or man made, so they could be forests,
Speaker 1: you know, traditionally there are things like forests and irrigation
Speaker 1: canals and fisheries and pastures and drown water basins. Um.
Speaker 1: But I think it's it can be expanded even food.
Speaker 1: I mean things like energy infrastructure like windmills, winterwo banes
Speaker 1: or as. Um. Going to describe different portions of the Internet,
Speaker 1: different resource systems within the interntion of course the Internet
Speaker 1: as a who well, I believe all of those things
Speaker 1: can um can be brought under the commons um And
Speaker 1: of course the commons. The theory of commons, history of
Speaker 1: the Commons is it's all uh lengthy discussion. Of course,
Speaker 1: you could read about it and Governing the Commons by
Speaker 1: eleanor Ostrom. You could listen to a sort of a
Speaker 1: condensed version of that. In my video on my channel
Speaker 1: on the commons as an institution, but when it comes
Speaker 1: to you know, information and communication technologies, when it comes
Speaker 1: to I c t S and sort of applying that
Speaker 1: commons idea to I C T S, I'd like to
Speaker 1: think about it in terms of these sort of digital
Speaker 1: communities bringing together people who share, you know, common goals
Speaker 1: to collaboratively build and share those resources through technology. So
Speaker 1: I would say that digital commons are or can be,
Speaker 1: and can be because I think some of them already
Speaker 1: exist in some form. But they are basically these online
Speaker 1: creation communities where you know, there's a free flu um
Speaker 1: and free access to and free collaboration, um. You know,
Speaker 1: the sharing of this non exclusive digital information and the
Speaker 1: collective creation of like knowledge resources. These resources of course
Speaker 1: being owned and used freely between or among the community
Speaker 1: and also available for use by three parties. So and
Speaker 1: instead of being exchanged as commodities, you know, these resources
Speaker 1: are used and reused and reused without artificial restrictions to
Speaker 1: sort of enforce an artificial scarcity. UM. I just actually
Speaker 1: thought of a really funny example that I hadn't initially
Speaker 1: conceived of in a sort of guideline for this episode,
Speaker 1: I don't know. If you're a lot of familiar with
Speaker 1: Martin Scorsese, is gonetro of no? Okay? So in three
Speaker 1: Martin Scorsese developed this film called Gone. It's a historical
Speaker 1: epic um, a sort of a post war era mafia movie.
Speaker 1: And it was directed by scotts Czy and it started
Speaker 1: Robert de Niro and Alpuccino and Gene Hackman. It had
Speaker 1: a sort of deep hume eroticism blended with a sort
Speaker 1: of exploration of of medial aggression. It's a sort of
Speaker 1: a look at the relationship between Gon Shrev, who is
Speaker 1: a Russian mafia boss, and his partners slash rival, slash
Speaker 1: old friend Andrew, who I believe is supposed to be
Speaker 1: an Italian mafia boss. But the thing about Gone Sharov
Speaker 1: and I mean, you can find posters about it, you
Speaker 1: can find fan art of which you can find many, many,
Speaker 1: many fan fictions about it. Um, But Gonsuv is not
Speaker 1: a real movie. V. It does not exist. Everything I
Speaker 1: described it's entirely fake. The litany of colorful side characters
Speaker 1: that you know, people have developed for this movie, the
Speaker 1: hundreds of fan fictions, the dozens of methanalyses and pieces
Speaker 1: of fun arts people have, you know, generated for this movie.
Speaker 1: The movie itself does not exist. The movie only exists
Speaker 1: in the collective um co creation of it that took
Speaker 1: place over a Tumbler of all places. Essentially, a couple
Speaker 1: of Tumbling users basically came up with this idea of
Speaker 1: this lost Martin Scorsese film that everybody has seemingly forgotten,
Speaker 1: and they would rave about it, and they would come
Speaker 1: up with fake plot points and fake characters, and before
Speaker 1: you know it, you know, it's sort of like this
Speaker 1: massive Internet phenomenon, sort of inside joke Internet, inside juke UM.
Speaker 1: One of people started building on top of it and
Speaker 1: respecting what came before um, and that sort of spirit
Speaker 1: of co creation is what it ended up creating. This
Speaker 1: gone this teal of gone throw, this gone through of fandom,
Speaker 1: this whol development of Gone Through as a character of
Speaker 1: the side characters as you know, fully developed characters. And
Speaker 1: it all started because you know, one user said to
Speaker 1: another like, oh, don't you know the movie Gone Shurov's
Speaker 1: only the greatest Mafia movie ever made. On that tagline,
Speaker 1: the greatest Matthia movie ever made would be built upon
Speaker 1: with further photoshops and embellishments and developments, and there's now
Speaker 1: like a really comprehensive document of gone shureoff law. Um.
Speaker 1: Things are added and just things added in complete seriousness.
Speaker 1: But it's just a thing that exists. It's a thing
Speaker 1: that I believe. UM. It's just one manifestation of many
Speaker 1: of what the Internet has the capacity to produce. When
Speaker 1: online creation communities are allowed to operate freely UM and develop,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't sort of common creative UM resources. I think
Speaker 1: other examples of I guess the seeds of what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about can be seen in UM. I guess like
Speaker 1: rule play UM servers and role play communities, role play
Speaker 1: message boards. I think some fandoms also have some of
Speaker 1: the seeds of what I'm talking about. Of course, the
Speaker 1: Minecraft community with everything they've created, modern communities across different games.
Speaker 1: They all sort of manifestations of, you know, human desire
Speaker 1: to create and human desire to share without you know,
Speaker 1: the artificial restrictions and boundaries of of mainstream couples imagination.
Speaker 1: I think another manifestation of the digital commons in a
Speaker 1: sense could be found in resources like z library, UM
Speaker 1: and a few others that I'm afraid of naming in
Speaker 1: case you don't think get taken down as well. And
Speaker 1: I mean that's really the sad part of ours. The
Speaker 1: library is lost. I mean I haven't really been feeling
Speaker 1: that loss because I am aware of the alternatives. Um,
Speaker 1: but it's lost on the last because of the way
Speaker 1: the library is formatted, it was a bit more accessible.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of people and people aware of it
Speaker 1: and stuff. UM, but Z library, and I'm glad that
Speaker 1: it's called a library. It's called Z library. It's just
Speaker 1: you know, one manifestation of the UM the routes of
Speaker 1: the library as a concept and how it can manifest
Speaker 1: UM in the digital speece, how the commons through the
Speaker 1: I guess the conception of the library can manifest in
Speaker 1: a in a digital space. I mean even you know,
Speaker 1: mainstream ones we have like we have, we have stuff
Speaker 1: like archive dot org and I know archive dot org
Speaker 1: is trying to launch something to host a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of scientific journals and other articles that are harder to
Speaker 1: access as well, but I mean they already host you know,
Speaker 1: quite impressive plethora of copyrighted books. UM. Me and Robert
Speaker 1: have gotten into arguments on Twitter dot com with many
Speaker 1: an author who is mad about their book being on
Speaker 1: archive dot archived dot org. And so that is you know,
Speaker 1: there is, there is, There is many resources if you
Speaker 1: know where to look. But sadly some are some someone
Speaker 1: are no longer with us and people have been have
Speaker 1: been u punished by the state for trying to provide
Speaker 1: open access to information. Yeah, I mean who controls information? Right? Well, however,
Speaker 1: the same goes I think another as you mentioned, kind
Speaker 1: another example of that sort of collaborative information sharing can
Speaker 1: be seen and of course Wikipedia, you know, yeah, as
Speaker 1: personal computers and the intents became more more accessible, the
Speaker 1: lower barriers of expression and stuff. Um, this Internet culture
Speaker 1: as and it was initially born, it was one with
Speaker 1: the aim of, you know, collaboratively creating cultural content. Is
Speaker 1: that developing and generating you know, univer we sell access
Speaker 1: to knowledge, you know, Wikipedia just one example. Of course,
Speaker 1: different wikis blural but of course longer called wickies. I
Speaker 1: think it's called fandom that all or something now. Yes, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: fandom bought a whole bunch of uh different wiki sites
Speaker 1: that were independently operated over the course of the past
Speaker 1: twenty years, and then they kind of consolidated under the
Speaker 1: big fandom company. Yeah, now like half of them are
Speaker 1: unusable because of ads and stuff. Yeah, it is, it is.
Speaker 1: It's it's pretty rough to scroll a fandom site. It's
Speaker 1: not the easiest thing. But I will see, as a
Speaker 1: youth with a few regulations and my access to the Internet,
Speaker 1: it was actually quite nice to be able to go
Speaker 1: onto fandom and just like well I was, you know,
Speaker 1: around when it was still Wicky. Um, but you know,
Speaker 1: going like Marvel Wicky or going TC Wicky and read
Speaker 1: up on all the different characters I was into at
Speaker 1: the time. Oh yeah, absolutely. You know I used to
Speaker 1: go on like power listing Wicky and like come up
Speaker 1: with characters, you know, piece on certain superpowers. Um. And
Speaker 1: I also created my own Wicky for my own like
Speaker 1: meat up, uh sort of world building project. Um. And
Speaker 1: just the fact that resource was available, you know, that
Speaker 1: the tools were easy, were free to access, um, and
Speaker 1: that easy to understand as well. UM. And of course
Speaker 1: they were always tutorials and stuff available if you don't
Speaker 1: know how to function and what to do certain things.
Speaker 1: Just that that that accessibility, UM and freedom is something
Speaker 1: that I think is still exists, you know, in some sense,
Speaker 1: despite you know, this company buying out everything, and I
Speaker 1: appreciate the fact that you know, unlike you know that
Speaker 1: company Wikipedias and me and e og. Wikipedia continues to
Speaker 1: maintain their steadfast anti ad um you know, standing um
Speaker 1: and continues to you know, um run on I guess
Speaker 1: crowdsourced donations just just today as of the day that
Speaker 1: we're recording. Uh. People whole a whole bunch of the
Speaker 1: right wingers that have coalesced around Musk after his purchase
Speaker 1: of Twitter have gotten mad at Wikipedia for not for
Speaker 1: they've They've gotten mad that Wikipedia wasn't was wasn't re
Speaker 1: posting their fake Twitter files drama thing um as glowingly
Speaker 1: as some of them might like. And they're complaining about
Speaker 1: Wikipedia's left wing bias. And a whole bunch of these
Speaker 1: Musk fan boys are talking about being like, hey, Elon
Speaker 1: Musk should buy Wikipedia and fix Wikipedia's left wing bias.
Speaker 1: And this there's this one, this this one guy who
Speaker 1: was like, um, I wonder how much Wikipedia would cost
Speaker 1: to buy at Elon Musk and then the the uh,
Speaker 1: the founder of Wikipedia's like, absolutely not, this is not
Speaker 1: for sale. We are not letting Elon muskmpie Wikipedia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean if if conservatives really want um a platform
Speaker 1: that badly, there's always conservative Pedia or whatever it's called. Um,
Speaker 1: there's always Encyclopedia if they want to get really wacky. UM.
Speaker 1: But yeah, Wikipedia is going to continue being Wikipedia, thankfully. UM.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the rabbit holes it has let me through.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the Wikipedia games that I've been able to play.
Speaker 1: You know, like you have to go from one page
Speaker 1: to another. Uh, you know that kind of degrees of
Speaker 1: pages how you link two different completely different topics. But yeah,
Speaker 1: zero advertising, accessible to all many different languages. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know it's not completely flawless. They're sitting um, very
Speaker 1: contentious articles of course, UM. They always be attempts to
Speaker 1: hijack that those peaches for the post of propaganda. Of course,
Speaker 1: every article has its bias. But By and Lodge, because
Speaker 1: of the collaborative nature of the project, they have been
Speaker 1: ways to mitigate bad actors and respond to um those
Speaker 1: sorts of attempts at corruption and cooptation. So you know,
Speaker 1: it goes to show that you know, even something as
Speaker 1: I would say, the centrally organized as Wikipedia, um, is
Speaker 1: still able to regulate itself collaboratively. Yeah. I think around
Speaker 1: this time last year here on the show, we interviewed
Speaker 1: somebody from Wikimedia UM specifically talking about how the talking
Speaker 1: about the the regional differences of the wikipedias that are
Speaker 1: in different countries and in different regions, how that impacts
Speaker 1: access access information, and how people in their own communities
Speaker 1: can work towards providing a fuller better picture of the
Speaker 1: types of information that people are getting. UM. And the
Speaker 1: great part about it is that it really does put
Speaker 1: the power into anyone's hands. It's not it's it's not
Speaker 1: gate kept the same way a lot of other information is. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the beauty of it. Really, I think another prominent
Speaker 1: case of information sharing rather file sharing and just sort
Speaker 1: that that payer to pay architecture we found in really UM,
Speaker 1: the pirating community could and could you know, there's facilities,
Speaker 1: access and the exchange of cultural products there might otherwise
Speaker 1: be lost, you know, as we're seeing with a lot
Speaker 1: of these shows being axed, and you know, people's hard
Speaker 1: earned UM, you know hard people who you know, really
Speaker 1: worked hard on sitting projects and stuff. These companies with
Speaker 1: their you know, tax dodging schemes and whatever, you're able
Speaker 1: to basically sweep all out a side UM and so
Speaker 1: the fact that um, we are able to preserve and
Speaker 1: of course in films and view and TV shows being
Speaker 1: taken down by sit in streaming services and not eve
Speaker 1: being able to be found easily physically. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: having these files and stuff just accessible online UM shared
Speaker 1: between payers is it's really great to see, UM, and
Speaker 1: it really allows for the preservation of things right otherwise
Speaker 1: be lost. And of course there's also as another example
Speaker 1: of a sort of digital comments UM, the idea of
Speaker 1: open source, or really the free software movement, which is
Speaker 1: a social movement aimed at attaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms
Speaker 1: for software users, you know, to run the software, to
Speaker 1: study software, to modify the software, and to share copies
Speaker 1: of that software, whether the modified or not. UM. The
Speaker 1: philosophy of this free software movement is really this idea
Speaker 1: that computer you should not lead to people being prevented
Speaker 1: from corporating with other In fact, it should be the opposite,
Speaker 1: should be allowing people to cooperate with each other. So
Speaker 1: things like you rejecting restrictions on software, promoting free software,
Speaker 1: and liberating people who use technology, use computers. It's really
Speaker 1: what you know, the free software movement is trying to
Speaker 1: do um. One of the founders of the movement again
Speaker 1: name is Stilman. He has said that the idea of
Speaker 1: the free software movement is that, you know, by allowing
Speaker 1: free access to software, it allows it promotes, rather than
Speaker 1: hinders the progression of technology, because it means that much
Speaker 1: of the wasteful duplication of system programming effort can be avoided,
Speaker 1: you know that EFFLCA instead of going into advancing different projects.
Speaker 1: So you open source and you know, free software movement
Speaker 1: what you want to call it, it's although I know
Speaker 1: there's some people make a distinction, um it is I
Speaker 1: would believe, I would think a manifestation of digital comments
Speaker 1: people are able to self organize through the associate and
Speaker 1: really just allowing people to you know, get their hands
Speaker 1: on some software, to create, to run, to redistribute, to
Speaker 1: change their software, to look to pick apart and learn
Speaker 1: from certain code. Um, I really just allow people to
Speaker 1: continue to create and share. And the sort of culture
Speaker 1: that open source and free software creates is one of
Speaker 1: you know, courtesy, is one of collaborations of helping one
Speaker 1: another to contribute to a greater whole, um, to sort
Speaker 1: of regulate each other's monitor activity that might jeopardize the project,
Speaker 1: and we see the benefits of that. You know, out
Speaker 1: of the most recognizable, high traffic open software projects, uh stable,
Speaker 1: you know, they're secure and they're very thoroughly understood by
Speaker 1: the people who collaborate to create them, compared to a
Speaker 1: lot of the more clues and proprietary projects that are
Speaker 1: not as accessible, not as open to scrutiny and study.
Speaker 1: So it is, I think, in a sense, a phone
Speaker 1: of of anarchy and um of people governing themselves and
Speaker 1: cooperating to create a whole greater than any individual could
Speaker 1: create a loan um. And speaking of you know people
Speaker 1: I guess coming together and communicating and collaborating. Um. It's
Speaker 1: this sense that I guess people have been discussing a
Speaker 1: lot lately of the digital public square, and Twitter teams
Speaker 1: is usually at the center of that conversation, This idea
Speaker 1: that we have this space that you know, that shouldn't
Speaker 1: be privatized, shouldn't that should be freely accessed and everyone
Speaker 1: could communicate without restriction. And when you have the free
Speaker 1: speech people within that honestly question the value of Twitter
Speaker 1: pretty much every day. Uh you know, obviously some good
Speaker 1: let's come out of it and the really other sort
Speaker 1: of quote and quote digital public squares like any sort
Speaker 1: of me and extreame social media. Some good you know,
Speaker 1: comes out to them. You know, you meet people, you
Speaker 1: are able to work in projects, able to meat like
Speaker 1: minded folks. All that is is good. But also a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, terrible, terrible things have come out
Speaker 1: to these platforms and continue to every single day. UM,
Speaker 1: So it's it's a mixed bag. But I think any
Speaker 1: sort of digital commons project will need a space, um
Speaker 1: and how that space is conceived what of course need
Speaker 1: to be unmoored from you know, havelessmashination, um that the
Speaker 1: act whole um, you know, potential economy, reach economy that
Speaker 1: aims to keep us divided and button heads. But I
Speaker 1: do think they will need to be they will need
Speaker 1: to be a space for communication across boundaries, across regions
Speaker 1: around the world easily. Last thing I really wanted to
Speaker 1: touch on on this topic. It's really the sort of
Speaker 1: the overlap between the idea of digital commons and t growth,
Speaker 1: so you know both sort of question that sort of
Speaker 1: means an idea of consumption. Um, digital commons, you know,
Speaker 1: they promote this this idea of someone who both consumes
Speaker 1: and produces, consumes value and digital space, but also adds
Speaker 1: to that value. That doesn't could modify UM the resources
Speaker 1: available in the digital space, but rather, you know, makes
Speaker 1: it accessible and adds to it, contributes to it. And
Speaker 1: that's at the idea of open access really something to
Speaker 1: the growth also tries to emphasize, you know, even though
Speaker 1: we're trying to scale within planetary limits, we still want,
Speaker 1: you know, a good life for all. We still want
Speaker 1: people to to collaborate and create UM and fract beople
Speaker 1: more free to do so without limitations that the growth
Speaker 1: oriented capitas economy imposes on us. The idea, of course
Speaker 1: digital commons also brings the means of production in the
Speaker 1: digitals fare under the control of the communities who use it.
Speaker 1: We use that resource, who use that service, in complete
Speaker 1: contrast the capitalist them of keeping them perfectly health and
Speaker 1: aiming to serve profit. Digital commons and deep growth both
Speaker 1: emphasize access UM it's information to knowed three resources as
Speaker 1: part of our human heritage, as part of our human rights.
Speaker 1: The commons should be something that is openly available rather
Speaker 1: than restricted, commodified, privatized. Of course, unlike traditional commands, UM
Speaker 1: you know, digital commons are not easily exhaustible, not really exhaustible. UM.
Speaker 1: They're not subject to many of the limitations that physical
Speaker 1: commons would have. But at the same time, you know,
Speaker 1: they depend on a certain infrastructure, and infrastructure that relies
Speaker 1: on you know, energy, and that energy has to come
Speaker 1: from somewhere. Being able to access the internet requires UM
Speaker 1: certain tools, certain technologies, computers, phones, whatever, UM, and the
Speaker 1: resources required to create those technologies has to come from somewhere. UM.
Speaker 1: The cables and the oceans, the satellites and space. You know,
Speaker 1: the electricity for the computers, the materials for the phones
Speaker 1: and the computers. All of those things UM consume and
Speaker 1: contribute the exhaustion of environmental resources. And so balancing that
Speaker 1: and being COmON sense of environmental impact, we still have
Speaker 1: to be essential component and you know, any development of
Speaker 1: the digital comments. At the end of the day, I
Speaker 1: believe that humans are sort of pre program to create
Speaker 1: and to collaborate with each other UM, and I think
Speaker 1: digital comments are one way in which we can do that.
Speaker 1: I really appreciated, UM the way that different writers and
Speaker 1: thinkers on the subjects have UM sort of explore those ideas.
Speaker 1: Of course, I drew a bit from one particular author,
Speaker 1: Mayo Foster moral um and the exploration of the idea,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot available if you're interested in covering
Speaker 1: topic and what happlin. Of course, the same goes for
Speaker 1: the communs in general. There are a lot of different
Speaker 1: resources out there. Um eleanor Ostrom's work is a great
Speaker 1: place to start, and I really think it's important that
Speaker 1: we do um get these conversations rolling in the mainstream,
Speaker 1: in the background, in every corner and every space, because
Speaker 1: we stand to benefit a lot from it, and we
Speaker 1: honestly really need it in a time like this. That's
Speaker 1: it from me for this episode. You can follow me
Speaker 1: on YouTube at androids um, on Twitter at and disclosing true,
Speaker 1: and on patreonic and support me if you'd like at
Speaker 1: patre dot com slash saying true yeah, and you can
Speaker 1: find it could happen here on Twitter and Instagram. Apparently
Speaker 1: we have the cool zone as a TikTok a thing
Speaker 1: that we learned. Do we officially have one? I thought we?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I okay, well that we did.
Speaker 1: Who knows? We may or may not have a TikTok.
Speaker 1: You'll never know. By earlier January. We definitely will because
Speaker 1: we have something special planned. Um but yes, Twitter, at
Speaker 1: least Twitter and Instagram at at happened here. Pondon, cools
Speaker 1: and media still on where despite despite the digital town
Speaker 1: square collapsing, we are holding out in the in the
Speaker 1: dystopian ruins of Twitter. Um so yeah, anyway, it could
Speaker 1: happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool
Speaker 1: zone media dot com, or check us out on the
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to podcasts. You can find sources for It could Happen here,
Speaker 1: updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com slash sources.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening,