Political thinking on the Cybershow

First and foremost it's a SHOW. Entertainment is a powerful way to speak to people in a way that breaks through. A good radio show ("podcast" for d'yute) needs some razzle and dazzle darlings, and a few laughs, or it's a bunch of sour people on the Internet complaining about things and trying to look clever. When Helen, Ed and I founded the show it was an attempt to carry on the serious fun we had at Uni, to make learning about cybersecurity, programming and human-computer relations enjoyable, more widely accessible. This format achieves what books and lectures cannot.

Technologists tend to focus on the technical, and so miss the bigger picture of human life. During 35 years lecturing on computer science I learned just how limited the discourse can be, and noticed the unfolding tragedy of how we're making ourselves slaves to our own technology. Yet there are many alternatives.

What I learned as a university professor is that code defines our lives. It sets our horizons, the limits of what we can think about. So that's why throughout my academic work I always used open Unix-like systems, and rarely if ever Microsoft or Apple offerings which presume to tell me how to think and limit my digital world. It enabled me to do the sorts of research that others could not and to make a small, genuinely novel contribution to computing. That's a secret I passionately want to pass on to the world. Especially to other scientists.

Of lesser importance perhaps is that the Cybershow is produced entirely using Free Open Source Software, without any "AI" or proprietary tools. All our content, including all of the music and effects is created in-house using Sony award winning techniques I learned and pioneered while at BBC Radio 1 under a great mentor Grant Buckerfield, and advanced effects methods I've taught at Abbey Road. Programs like Ardour, Audacity and Pure Data are at the heart of our sound because they are so flexible. If there's a "best practice" or "winning formula" for podcasting, we're here to ignore it and break it.

Our entertainment goal remains; make a fun, critical, independent, thoughtful slant on the 'cyber' world. Research well. Help our guests to have a clear voice. If in doubt, find out. If we don't know what people really think, we go out in the street and ask them, reflecting opinion with vox-pops, not just trying to change things without understanding.

Interview is one of our main activities. That means talking to real people about technology; developers, security and psychology experts, educators, politicians, campaigners in various areas. Everyone.

RMS and others in the US humane tech movements might be surprised at just how few ordinary people in the UK and Europe have heard of "Software Freedom". Most have a vague but strong gnawing sensation of unease at how technology abuses and controls them. The current language of Software Freedom doesn't always vibe with folk, even though its ideas are powerful. Connecting up those thoughts and feelings is part of our mission. Software Freedom provides some but not all of the ingredients to counter the darkness now spreading through society.

Recently we've interviewed historians, psychoanalysts, artists, criminologists, sociologists and educators about how digital technology is changing society and how we can all have more influence in making that better.

So we focus on the broad political philosophy of tech, not so much on the dramas and machinations of Big Tech; who acquired who, who sued who, who stole whose idea, and other so-called 'news' that is a distraction from deeper ideas and practical action. Even "AI" is just a nuisance hype storm that will pass.

We do this with open minds but not wide eyes. Not naively. The Cybershow is experts talking to experts with the aim of creating an accessible and enjoyable conversation.

As a great modern American philosopher Rick Roderick said;

"We do not have all the answers. We have not yet even formulated all the right questions."

Discovering new questions is part of our mission.

Beyond the parochial celebrity "tech leaders" there are many important thinkers whose ideas are relevant to the challenges we face today. We try to remind listeners of these ideas. Albert Einstein wrote passionately on the social and political aspects of technology and education. Norbert Wiener had extraordinarily deep thoughts on cybernetics and the dark side of control systems in the hands of humans and machines. Joseph Weizenbaum, inventor of the chatbot, gave us profound warnings about the dangers of "AI". Over 40 years ago Neil Postman wrote "Amusing ourselves to death". Before him Lewis Mumford and Marshall McLuhan explained many of the psychological effects of media we're still wrestling with today. Brilliant anthropologists and system theorists like Ursula Franklin and Donella Meadows have explained why technology becomes problematic and how to address those failings at a social and political level rather than simply a technical one.

Mixing the arts and humanities with a deep understanding of technology creates a possible path to clarity. Humanity cannot survive "digitalisation" without maintaining a broad and wry outlook. This recent essay by Blain Smith, followed a day later by another great blog post from researcher Paulette Koronkevich capture a note in the air around the vitality of arts and humanities to steering technological progress.

Our work includes writing ¹ and lots of reading for research. Creating good questions requires we review many hours of papers and transcripts to distil themes. Occasionally we invite other podcasters and writers to join us.

Without the perspective that history, literature, art, philosophy and humour give to tech critique, plus a dose of creative panache to help difficult medicine go down, the current state of anti-humanism and extremist religious zeal that blights tech would be insufferable. We try to do this without cynicism. I wish we could get more comedy and satire into the show to balance the tragedy.

What we share with Stallman et al, is that we look for genuine optimism around technology. Perhaps foolishly, we still believe in the liberating potential of computers. We're tech optimists of an entirely different flavour to those of Silicon Valley and "AI" religious cults. Indeed our optimism is that their projects fail and give way to a more thoughtful, measured attitude to technological progress. So, we try to kick the fake optimism of marketeers, hype-merchants, drug-addled gurus and narrow-minded tech-bros to the curb. We're decently educated, not easily fooled and try to be open-minded and thoughtful. We promote the same scepticism amongst our audience.

We therefore try to avoid apocalyptic narratives around how terrible every new development is, even though so much of tech is becoming a cult of domination and existential threat to life on Earth. There is much good to salvage and the right road is taking back democratic control of tech.

How does critical thinking and software freedom help children stay safe online? Why is privacy and anonymity even more important to young people than ever? What are the political, social and psychological mistakes that big tech and government regulators make?

Stallman told us;

"A crucial basic point is that the danger comes from services ("dis-services"), not from programs."

This is true. People often think of platforms like Facebook of Google Search as if they were merely application programs (apps) and completely forget that they are really huge empires of people, "directing minds" behind them. These teams have the wealth of nation states and devious political agendas. They own the channels of discourse and are chameleon, ever-changing and infiltrate all institutions of civic life. Their "services" are designed and operated for power and profit while their glossy, acceptable fronts shield their operators from responsibility for business decisions made to maximise private gain.

In response, it is as if we get angry at cars instead of bad drivers. We blame broad technologies instead of wicked individuals and unconscionable ideas.

When politicians dream up things like "age gating" or "digital online ID" they are being trolled. Their reactionary attacks are against the entire digital ecosystem, not the culprits. Far better would be to change the laws of business to stop shielding those who knowingly do harm. Sadly, none of our politicians have much stomach for that. Digital technology reveals huge holes in our culture, jurisprudence, legal and moral structures that need updating to cope with the 21st century.

This is why the jury decision finding Google and Facebook liable for addictive harms in the Bellweather case is significant. It's far more effective than a country like Brazil cooking up unenforceable blanket regulation of operating systems. Instead we must use the law to target criminals rather than imposing collective punishment upon the entire Internet. It's the same folly of locking our children indoors rather than tackling the dangers in our neighbourhood. It is punishing the victim. It is poisoning our own well to spite a traveller who draws a drink.

These are the kinds of insights we all need to talk about much more.

What is the relation of software freedom and critical thinking to the environment, with regard to e-waste (WEEE), recycling, right to repair and power and water consumption of data-centres?

Richard replied to me;

"One can't expect a bunch of free programs to magically eliminate waste, but some non-free software definitely causes a lot of avoidable waste."

Here I think Stallman may modestly understate the case. My experience through several decades is that hugely extending the life of computers can be done simply by installing better software. More effective, local, leaner, cleaner software in the form of GNU/Linux or BSD variants is a salvation. It has a massive impact on waste. We've spoken to renowned environmentalists and Nobel recipients to understand e-waste and how our tech affects the planet. All agree that we must change the way we make, use and dispose of tech, and to do that we must assert an entirely new culture that obsoletes "consumerism" and blind dependency.

Free Software and corresponding open hardware that can be verifiably manufactured in local fabs is the future of technological society if we are to survive. This enables diverse, modular, reusable computing components that ensure supply-chain security and long-term resilience. While Europeans are slowly waking up to this we have not yet understood the gargantuan battles ahead to break BigTech, clean up government procurement corruption, obsolete patent systems and unfair "IP" laws that stand in the way of digital reform.

Remembering the many "Rs" ² of healthy ecology, an interesting challenge and opportunity after the "AI" bubble bursts will be what to do with millions of high performance matrix processors and large RAM arrays. Preparing Free Software able to move into that vacuum and re-purpose data centres would be beneficial to humanity on an ecological level. Otherwise it's just expensive waste to be melted down when the Ponzi investment scheme collapses.

Although cybersecurity and national security are in tatters, we don't side with the Chicken Little's of the insecurity industry. Yes, things are bleak. Frightening people is worse than counterproductive, it does our enemys' work for them. Building more walls isn't the answer. Nor is kicking-in the door of privacy. More surveillance is a fool's errand, but politicians are easily tricked into seeing "deploy more spying" as something good.

How is software freedom vital to national security? What does this mean in relation to digital sovereignty and changing geopolitics? Whose sovereignty?

To answer this we invite seasoned cyber-warriors and intelligence thinkers to come and talk about the reality, and the causes. Often that reality is awkward and embarrassing and so they're reluctant to go there. We soon tease it out, usually with a little charm and kindness. We know the most sincere and devoted personnel deeply feel the disconnect between their conscience and what they feel pressured to say or be seen to do.

We note how experts are relieved once the conversation has opened-up and the topic is aired. Some of the smartest people out there feel isolated and unheard because they do not have a place to talk about their real concerns.

One of the things we don't do is anonymous whistle-blower stories. The formula is very much; "come on the show, talk to us and put your name to what you say". Often it makes sense to gather a few experts to analyse and interpret stories that have already aired in the mainstream, but feel warped by PR disinfo, muddied and lacking clarity that ordinary people could make sense of.

For example Hikvision exposed a limitation in thinking around CCTV in Britain, one that is now clearly demonstrated in Iran. For years British people have been led to cheer whenever more CCTV is put up to "fight crime". When we've spoken to prominent security thinkers they've been relieved to get into the more nuanced conversation that "maybe we shouldn't be putting up CCTV cameras everywhere because that is itself a security risk." Prior to that the discussion was only about privacy - which is an important but distinct issue. Think about it next time you are typing in your phone or laptop password while on public transport. Look behind you… who is watching through that camera? ³

The biggest ever hack on the United States exploited the government's own mandated wiretap system (CALEA) to compromise the entire U.S. telecoms system. It went on for years and undoubtedly played a major part in the current political changes there. They thought the surveillance system was infallible and working for them. All the while it was working against them.

In reality, this sort of analysis is properly "balanced", in that it doesn't simply ignore massively inconvenient facts of life.

Another kind of "balance" is to look for the good things and highlight them. There are many genuine uses for machine learning that can revolutionise certain areas from medicine to mineral exploration. The media hype of "AI" and the awful consumer products being pushed by BigTech do a massive disservice to the hard work of computer scientists who've worked their lifetimes on algorithms that add real value to humanity. Getting them on the show to talk about and critically defend their ideas is a different way of fighting the disinformation. The bullshitters know we will cut them to pieces, so they stay away.

However, "balance" isn't something we claim. Leave that to the BBC. There are people and companies in tech we genuinely don't like and we hope fail. Far more important than a ridiculous aspiration to balance is a recognition that the world is complex, with many spheres of interest, many contradictory sets of ideas, and many worthy goals that are in tension.

We take it for granted that Big Tech is as abominable as over-intrusive government and cyber-criminal gangs. It may be "better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies", but I would prefer to live without either. Police and thieves in the street, scaring the nation… so we innately oppose all "technofascist" and "consumer communist" ideologies along with anti-democratic and anti-humanist abuses of digital technology to justify such ideas. We see that nobody has clean hands in tech.

Our goal is to spread a set of broad positive ideas about safe, sustainable technology, digital rights, literacy, sovereignty, and ecology. What is the best that technology could be?

As in all epochs most of those sustainable ideas rest on simple but hard-won principles like property rights, freedom of knowledge and association, proper education, transparent democracy, freedom to share and so on.

In less than 25 years digital technology has carved out exceptions or reversed basic principles of human affairs set out in antiquity by Aristotle, in the Renaissance by thinkers like Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, and in modernity by great minds from Madison to Malcolm X. Most of this political vandalism has been at the behest of a few dozen oligarchs, but done in the name of "convenience" and "efficiency" - two of the worst vices of our times. We can either blame oligarchs for exploiting us, or look to our own weaknesses in being so willingly exploited.

The "good" news is that simply installing new software can patch a technological society. That is both its strength and weakness. It allows both unimaginable tyranny and bloodless transition to freedom, anarchy or any other conceivable regime. The more anyone uses technology to assert power, the less of a grip they have on it.

We're here to talk about the kind of software we, as a species, would like to design and run.

We're often prescient and justifiably outspoken on changing issues while being mindful of the complexity of intersecting spheres of interest. For example; We long championed child online safety as vehemently as we now oppose the foolish implementation of digital age restriction or client-side intrusion. We see the utility of unified digital ID as clearly as its obvious tyrannical failings in the making. We try to shine light on bad and dishonest arguments of ill-informed, mischievous or corrupted (bought) politicians.

This we call 'civic cybersecurity' - which is the right of each citizen (whether individuals or business) to determine and be secure in their digital lives, in control of technology they own and safe from intrusion, snooping, and coercion. This includes the right not to participate in chosen technologies on the grounds of ethics, religious or political beliefs or mental disposition. So we're interested in how people avoid dependency, addiction and coercion, how individuals and communities achieve technological self-determination, create and use alternatives, or abstain. This connects strongly with the Free Software movement but also with Slow Living, Ecological and Health and Well-being ideals.

We are strongly aligned with the idea of 'humane technology'. So choice, and in particular Software Freedom is at the heart of what we espouse. Software Freedom is implied in many of the values we uphold.

However, there also points of departure;

The Cybershow comes from a generation where the ideals of Software Freedom are woven-in to everything we do. We've grown up with and live in a world of technology that exists only because the natural freedom to share knowledge has made our education within a prosperous democratic society possible. That's something we stand to defend. Unlike the tech-bros who aim to pull up the ladder and deny new blood the same opportunities, we want to ensure all our children have the same, and better, opportunities for exploration, education and success.

Being British we have a different perspective, as post-colonialists who have both been and resisted empires, led the first industrial revolution, innovated the golden era of physics and the mathematical basis of computing. Britain prospered through intellectual freedom and the freedom of commerce. We're determined to defend it against new waves of authoritarianism. The idea that humans are not free to determine their technology, that technology is not intimately bound to liberal democracy, is dangerous and wrong.

Technofascism is a road to catastrophes of domination, division, civil collapse and war. Presently, its most fervent disciples are mixed up in end-times raptures, singularities, anti-Christ conspiracy theories and all manner of unhinged nonsense.

We can do better.

The Software Freedom movement has primarily US American origins. In contrast we are influenced by European and wider world philosophies, not only a US American idea of "freedom". Recently the USA has shown us many of the darker interpretations of "freedom" and just how little it is prepared to do to defend it. Freedom must be tempered by responsibility and can be a clumsy word that tricks its adherents into becoming tools of the opposite. Right now in tech, "freedom" is that of the rich and powerful to exploit the poor and weak.

Governments and regulation have a part to play in curtailing some of the "worst freedoms". Abandoning the idea that BigTech can provide "culture sanitisation as a service" while being a safely outsourced surveillance state will require actually engaging with culture and people. Will the mighty deign to descend amongst us, come down from their glass offices, and enjoy the smell?

Our project looks to something broader than just Software Freedom or attacking its enemies. We believe that Software Freedom as a movement will continue to mature and find its natural alignment with democratic and ecological goals, and a wider mission for social, psychological and economic well-being. First it needs to shake-off its academic roots and a little of its social-justice righteousness. Academia is utterly captured by giant corporate interests and has long been a poor representative of freedom in any case. Social justice movements have been blighted by toxic culture, self-promoting egotists, violent rhetoric, silencing dissent, and the stereotypical self-disassembly of the Judean Peoples' Front ⁴.

The importance of source code, maths education, programming culture, literary education and personal computing freedom cannot be overstated. These are the timeless basics of civilised life and it should hardly seem controversial to defend them. Our technological society would not and can not exist without them. But defend them we must, since they are now under attack.

The cost of upholding common knowledge is significant and we're always one generation away from collapse. "AI" - not as a technology but as a whole way of non-thinking - is a clear threat. Developers who "embrace vibe coding" undermine their own futures not only by cognitive atrophy but by removing their very freedom to code.

Technological freedom in general is under attack by fearful authoritarians who would dearly love to rob all humankind of technical autonomy and destroy computer science and mathematics as liberal arts. They would replace personal computers with approved appliances, make the Internet a gulag and replace human knowledge with directing oracles - all in the name of profit and power. The likely lifespan of any technofascist regime is less than 10 years, with little hope of rebuilding civilisation in its wake.

Software Freedom is a powerful bulwark against domination. However it is in danger of waning in a world where "AI" zealots push for "vibe coding" and "direct instruction" of unfathomable agentic (autonomous) cloud entities.

Stallman's four freedoms need fresh interpretation in a world where fewer people will actually write code despite the deeper principles of software freedom remaining more important than ever.

The tight focus of Stallman and all at GNU or FSF is both a strength and weakness. That's not a disparagement or entreatment for them to change, however the US Software Freedom movement must grow and adapt too. There is much that they miss in the bigger picture.

Software Freedom is super important. It it self-evidently preferable and superior to draconian restriction and a cloistered proprietary world which operates from a position of fear and isolation. But it cannot ensure a good technological society alone, nor single-handedly uphold liberal democracy against toxic forms of technology. For that we require a broader, new digital literacy, and new communities of thought. That's what we want to explore at the Cybershow.

For example; This week the "Linux Community" (to the extent any such thing exists) are all up in arms about introducing "age verification" code into systemd. It's a plainly stupid idea, for a dozen reasons I won't list here. But, since many Linux distributions that adorn themselves with the conceit of being "Free Software" no longer meet the basic requirements for freedom, it shows that the epithet "Free Software" is neither accurate nor sufficient to cover the broader idea of Software Freedom.

Further; I occasionally hear that "damned software freedom" is responsible for poor security, facilitating online crime and every ill of society. Of course this is spectacular nonsense, disingenuous and mischievous. It's like blaming farmers for crime caused by growing food that criminals might eat and it shows spectacular ignorance. But defending against such silliness is constant gardening. It requires clear thinking, steady and authoritative work.

Cleearly a time has come to draw some lines in the sand about what consitutes "freedom" in the land of computing. I think it would be best if "real hackers", those who genuinely value the principles of knowledge and self-determination in the technical arts, divest their efforts from commercial Linux. Both the Kernel and systemd have become quite problematic from a freedom and digital rights perspective. The communities around commercial distros (and sadly I have to include Debian at this point) have lost control of their projects to the kind of people and ideas that have no place.