Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000: Difference between revisions

From creative crowd wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(56 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''Claiming distance. User subjectivity in data driven environments and trans*feminist imaginations of doing otherwise''' ==
__NOTOC__
'''Shusha Niederberger'''
= Calling the User:<br>Interpellation and Narration of User Subjectivity in Mastodon and ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' =


=== Abstract ===
<span class="running-header">Calling the User: Interpellation and Narration of User Subjectivity in Mastodon and <i>Trans*Feminist Servers</i></span>
In the last years, critical data studies has brought forward a body of work analysing the ramifications of the developing data driven digital environments that structure large part of our digital practice today. However, the position of the user has been only little developed in this field, especially in regard to questions of subjectivity and agency.


In this paper, I discuss the ways digital infrastructures create user subjectivity on different levels of technology. I start with the observation of a crisis in user subjectivity manifesting in the migratory waves from Twitter to Mastodon end of 2022, that highlights the role of infrastructure for user subjectivity. The return of the server with Mastodon stands for a relational subjectivity that foregrounds connections and communities, rather than the abstract autonomous identity of the user of cloud based services. Through this I examine the broader contemporary neoliberal subjectivity that is deeply shaped by an understanding of identity construction as part of consumer culture. I then contrasts this with the empty subject that is projected through data regimes itself. I argue that this new governmentality of data is radically extending neoliberal subjectivity of disconnectedness. I reclaim this space of distance as field for cultural practice of resistance and alternatives ways of doing technology. Through a small case study of ''Feminist Servers'' I discuss artistic and activist practice of articulation of relationality to technology both conceptually, and practically as lived practice.
== Abstract ==
In recent years, a large body of work has analyzed the cultural and social ramifications of data-driven digital environments that currently structure digital practice. However, the position of the user has scarcely been developed in this field.  


=== Tags ===
In this paper I discuss how user subject positions are invoked by digital infrastructures as an alternative to big technology platforms. With subject positions I mean a shared and often unarticulated understanding of what kind of technological practice is meant when we talk about users: user as a cultural form. I start with the analysis of a crisis in user subjectivity as it manifested in the migratory waves from Twitter to Mastodon at the end of 2022, after Elon Musk bought Twitter. Like Twitter, Mastodon is a microblogging service, but it operates as a network of connected servers run by nonprofit organizations and communities. I argue that Mastodon—by way of its infrastructural organization around servers and communities—invokes a different subject position of the user than the self-contained autonomous liberal subject, one that is based on a relationship with a community. In a second case study, I discuss how the artistic activist practices of ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' create a territory to rethink relations to technology itself, most prominently through raising questions of servitude: what does it mean to serve and to be served? I argue that through this, ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' are able to reformulate use as part of relations of care and maintenance and implement them in their technological practice. As I conclude, both Mastodon and ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' project a user exceeding the neoliberal subject. While Mastodon does so by proposing a subject position related to a community first, ''Trans*feminist Servers'' go a step further and moreover open use as a practice beyond consumption, thus operate on relations to infrastructure itself.
subjectivity, data, infrastructure, practice, Feminist Servers, Trans*Feminist Servers, platforms, surveillance, social media, Twitter, Mastodon, feminism


=== Introduction ===
<div class="page-break"></div>
Critical Data Studies is a new field in Media Studies, and has developed a substantial body of work about the cultural and political ramification of data driven environments (Boyd and Crawford; Iliadis and Russo). It raised important questions of flaws and bias in data (Eubanks), how data driven systems are enhancing inequality (O’Neil), extend colonial modes of exploitation and thingification (Couldry and Mejias), and install new forms of discrimination (Benjamin). But the user position remains underdeveloped in this field, even though the ever growing body of circulating data is collected from user interaction with digital platforms,


The user is being conceptualised in another emerging field of what I call “user studies”, a body of work in anthropology, especially in regard to sense making processes of algorithms (Siles et al.; Bucher; Rader and Gray; Devendorf and Goodman). These concepts articulate technology not as essentialist independent artefacts, but something that is created through shared praxis, as culture (Seaver). These studies are an important contribution to the understanding of the position users have in the contemporary data driven digital world.
== Introduction ==
People are constantly involved in a process of becoming a user through technology. Today, technology usually means data-driven environments that permeate everyday life, from the personal to the professional sphere, and shape the ways we relate to each other, to ourselves, and to the world as well as how we organize on a social and political level. Data is everywhere, and large amounts of data are produced by users through interactions with platforms and cloud-based digital infrastructures. What does it mean to be a user today? How does data-driven technology profit not only from user interaction, but also produce the 'user'? How can we think through the relations of platforms and users in ways that offer different imaginations, and thus open up a space to act?


However, through their focus on users as individuals, they often fail to address the political dimensions. User subjectivity is a cultural form – a shared imagination of what technological practice is meant when we talk about users. This imagination is deeply political, because it is not only a bottom up sense-making process as investigated by Users Studies, but subjectivity is exactly the place where the social – including power relations in technology as analysed in Critical Data Studies – are inscribed in the self-understanding of users.
This article is interested in the user as a cultural form, a mostly implicit and unarticulated shared understanding of what kind of technological practice is meant when we talk about users. This is not a psychological perspective focused on the inner life of an individual, neither it is an anthropological view of a group of living persons in their specific cultural contexts. The user as a cultural form is concerned with subjectivity, but as shared imaginations. Subjectivity itself is individual, the temporal situation of a person through which individuals makes sense of the world. It is a continuous process of becoming particular in relation to the complexities of the world. But as philosopher Olga Goriunova highlights, subjectivity is always developed in relation to shared imaginations about what it means to be in the world, e.g., as a woman, an adult, or — in our case — a user. These shared cultural imaginations are called 'subject positions' (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”). They are role models or figurations and provide a position in the world from which to make sense. As shared imaginations, subject positions are articulated and developed in the cultural domain. Furthermore, they are also aesthetic positions in the sense that they formulate a position from where practice is possible, as Goriunova insists. Thus subject positions are shaped by practice and the communities around them. Goriunova has exemplified this for very specific practices at the intersection between commons and digital activist/artistic practices (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”), but the principle of linking practice and subjectivity also applies to the more general field of everyday use.  


How then is this subjectivity of users structured through their contemporary environment of data driven platforms? How can we think both through subjectivity as a place of being affected, and also a place of claiming agency? And what can we learn from artistic-activist practice about addressing subjectivity and opening space for action, for being user differently?
Despite their central position in data, users are considered only at the margins of the current critical discourses about the implications of data-driven environments. In the field of Critical Data Studies, a substantial body of work emerged about the cultural and political ramifications of data-driven environments (Boyd and Crawford; Iliadis and Russo). It raises important questions about flaws and bias in data (Eubanks), how data-driven systems enhance inequality (O’Neil), extend colonial modes of exploitation and thingification (Couldry and Mejias), and install new forms of discrimination (Benjamin). However, the position of the user remains underdeveloped in this field and is primarily discussed in terms of abuse and exploitation.


=== The Twitter crisis ===
But big data is not only a new way of organizing and operationalizing knowledge obtained from users, but constitutes a new mode of signification. As law philosopher Antoinette Rouvroy explains, data produces meaning out of itself, and not about the world. The data about a user’s browsing history does not mean her journey surfing the web, but is taken as an indicator of personality, age, gender, interests, economic situation, and many more, often secret categories. The recorded traces users leave thus take on a life of their own. This is a process of signification that is not indexical. Thus data does not operate through representation or causality, but by probability and statistics. Goriunova suggests the term 'distance' to describe this nonindexical relation between people and data (Goriunova, “The Digital Subject”). It is through distance that big data produces new modes of governmentality and as well as new subjects, with far-reaching consequences, e.g., for the legal domain (Rouvroy).  
After Elon Musk bought Twitter at the end of October 2022, people started discussing alternatives. One of the alternatives was Mastodon, a micro-blogging service like Twitter. In contrast to Twitter, Mastodon is not corporate owned. It is a network of connected servers, which are often run by small collectives and non-profit organisations. After the acquisition of Twitter by Musk and during every wave of policy change that followed it, the Mastodon network showed waves of new registrations. During little more than three months, the Mastodon network grew from 4.5 to 9 million users and more significantly, from 3’700 to 17’000 servers[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote1sym|<sup>1</sup>]]. To contrast: Twitter has 238 million users[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote2sym|<sup>2</sup>]], so even with the steady growth of Mastodon’s user count, changing from Twitter to Mastodon still is a movement trough technological scale.  


And from the users side, it was often experienced as a crisis in subjectivity:
How users make sense of this distance is investigated in another emerging field I call 'User Studies'. It is a body of work in anthropology that addresses sense-making processes about algorithms and platforms (Siles et al.; Bucher; Rader, and Gray; Devendorf and Goodman). These studies articulate technology not as essentialist independent artefacts, but as something that is created through shared praxis, as culture (Seaver). They are an important contribution to the understanding of the position users have in the contemporary data-driven digital world. However, through their focus on users as individuals and on bottom-up sense-making processes, they are only marginally concerned with the subjectivity of users, discussing it under the term of identity (Karizat et al.). They often fail to address the political dimensions as articulated in Critical Data Studies and do not consider the cultural forms of subject positions.


Subjectivity is linked not only to technology, but also to the broader sociocultural environment. This has been a recurrent topic in Cultural Studies (Hall). Here, the term 'subjectivity' has a meaning similar to 'subject positions', as explained above. Especially in feminist scholarship, there is an ongoing debate about how subjectivity is shaped by neoliberal formations (Banet-Weiser) and how it responds to critical perspectives, incorporating them into new narratives about femininity as self-empowered and independent, however problematic and conflicting they may be (Gill and Kanay). This body of work highlights the role of narratives mobilizing values, which circulate in a culture deeply shaped by capitalist dynamics. However, it is not directly concerned with users and big data technologies, but provides a backdrop of the manifold ways culture and institutions are involved in the creation, maintenance, and transformation of widely shared basic forms of subjectivity that the subject position of the user inherit.


''Screenshot of a Twitter post of a friend of mine, saying that “as long the alternatives (formulated pointedly) are ‘from nerds for nerds’, this discussion is of little use. […].” (my translation)''
The user as a distinct part of the cultural history of technology is only rarely specifically discussed. Notable examples are Olia Lialina, who mapped conceptualizations of the user in the historical discourse in HCI (human-computer interface) (Lialina), and Joanne McNeil, who traced a cultural history of the Internet from the perspective of users themselves, highlighting the diversity of experiences and cultural differences that manifest in and through technology (McNeil).


It is important to understand that is not only a personal crisis. My friend articulating here that he is not a nerd, and thus Mastodon is not for him is not only about him. It also is about the cultural form of the user being different than that of the nerd.  
The shared imaginations of user subject positions as a specific position in technological practice is deeply political, because it is not only a bottom-up sense-making process as investigated by Users Studies, but claims subjectivity as precisely that place where the power relations in technology, as analyzed in Critical Data Studies, are inscribed in the self-understanding of users, thus reproducing them. As already explained, this analysis takes subjectivity—and in extension subject positions—as a place of being affected, but also as a place of claiming agency. This analysis follows Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation (Althusser et al.), draws on performative concepts of identity (Butler), and extends a line of thinking that considers how subjectivities are both expressed in and shaped by mass media (Silverman and Atkinson).  


=== Subject positions ===
In this paper I will bring these strands of thinking together through an analysis of two case studies. The first is an analysis of a contemporary event: the wave of migration from Twitter to Mastodon following the acquisition of the former by Elon Musk. I argue that some of the difficulties of switching to Mastodon can be analyzed as a crisis in the subject position of the user, and I will discuss the role of infrastructural organization in this crisis.  
Both the general user and the nerd are subject positions of technological practice. Subject positions themselves are cultural imaginations (Goriunova, ‘Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons’). They are role models or figurations, and offer a position in the world from which to make sense. They are not the same as individual subjectivity, they are shared and work as a background against which individual subjectivity can be developed. Subject positions are articulated in the cultural domain. As Goriunova insists, they are also aesthetic positions in the sense that they formulate a position from where practice is possible. And of course, they are shaped by practice and the communities which are formed through practices. Goriunova has exemplified this for very specific practices at the intersection of commons and digital activist / artistic practices (Goriunova, ‘Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons’), but the principle of interconnectedness of practice and subjectivity applies also to the more general field of everyday use.  


=== The return of the server: infrastructure and subjectivity ===
Because subject positions live and are transformed in the cultural field, cultural and artistic practice provide a privileged position of developing methods and practices of doing otherwise. In the second case study I discuss ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' as an artistic-activist strategy on the terrain of cultural imagination of technology itself. ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' aim at developing other subjectivities and fostering different practices of being a user, both as a conceptual tool and as lived technological practice. This allows reclaiming user practice as a place for careful relationships not only with a community (as in the first case study of Mastodon’s interpellation of user subjectivity), but also with technology itself.  
One aspect in the crisis of subjectivity is the return of the server. Scale as a numerical quantifier is an important aspect of platforms, because they thrive on network effects: the more numerous their users, the more valuable the platform is for everybody (Srnicek 45). But as already mentioned, the difference between Twitter and Mastodon is not only one of numerical scale in user count, but foremost one of organisation on an infrastructural level. Twitter is operating as centralised platform, it is a unified service accessed through an app and its data and processes are located in the cloud.  Mastodon however runs on a decentral network of federated[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote3sym|<sup>3</sup>]] servers, that are connected by a shared protocol.


Of course technically speaking, also big technology and the cloud are operating on servers. Servers are still the main nodes in the infrastructure of the internet: it is on servers where data is stored and where user requests are processed. But servers have been abstracted away in order to make technical systems scaleable (Monroe). This is another step in the chain of abstractions on which our digital infrastructure is built on. Through this abstraction in service of scaleability, servers have disappeared from the view of users. And with it, a contextual and materialist understanding of digital infrastructure, that includes specific machines, local contexts and a diversity of practices turned into immaterial services and apps. Servers have been replaced with the cloud, a metaphor suggesting quite the opposite of the massive, energy-hungry data centers that are powering large scale digital  infrastructure. Thus, in the age of cloud computing, we simply can’t know on how many servers Twitter is running.
== The Twitter crisis ==
When Elon Musk bought Twitter at the end of October 2022, people started discussing alternatives. One of them was Mastodon—like Twitter, a micro-blogging service. Unlike Twitter, Mastodon is not corporate-owned. It is a network of connected servers that are often run by small collectives and nonprofit organizations. Following the acquisition of Twitter by Musk and during every wave of policy change that followed, the Mastodon network showed waves of new registrations. During little more than three months, the Mastodon network grew from 4.5 to 9 million users and, more significantly, from 3,700 to 17,000 servers (according to the User Count Bot for all known Mastodon instances @mastodonusercount@mastodon.social). For comparison purposes: Twitter has 368 million users (Iqbal), so even with the steady growth of Mastodon’s user count, changing from Twitter to Mastodon is a movement through technological scale, with many consequences (because platforms thrive on network effects: the more numerous their users, the more valuable the platform is for everybody [Srnicek 45]). But on the part of the users, this was often experienced as a crisis in subjectivity:


The stated return of the server happens very prominently at the first step of the signup process for Mastodon. Here, Mastodon asks users to pick a server, and with it about a specific context to join. In order to answer this, users need to identify themselves in different ways than on big technology platforms. Signing up to a commercial platform asks you to identify yourself as a classical autonomous (self-contained) liberal individual. In contrast, the sign up process of Mastodon asks to choose a server, which means to identify yourself in relation to a community.  
[[File:Nerds-for-nerds.png|thumb|642px|Figure 1: Screenshot of a Twitter post by a friend of mine: “As long as the alternatives (somewhat pointedly formulated) are ‘from nerds for nerds,’ this discussion is of little use. This is just how nerds accuse everyone else of being lazy. I would be more interested in discussing who should be responsible for a more inclusive web (commons, public service).” (author’s highlighting and translation)]]


My friend’s interpretation of this request as nerdy points to an understanding of servers being outside of user subjectivity and as technological artefacts are belonging to the nerd. But it also points to something deeper: As the signup process of Twitter indicates, contemporary user subjectivity is closely aligned with the liberal subject, that refers to an autonomous self. The liberal autonomous self is also a subject position, a more general one, that is serving as a blueprint of user subjectivity. And as Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser in the 1960ies explained, the social and political implications of subjectivity is continuously actualised in individuals through a process called ‹interpellation› through what he called institutions, in our case infrastructure (Althusser et al.). This means that subjectivity is never only personal, or interior, but that the personal, the psychological and the individual are deeply linked to the world and its social, economic, political and cultural formations. Althusser called this fundamental link between subjectivity and the world ideology. In this understanding, ideology is not a qualitative judgement, it just states that our conception of the world and our actions are structured by forces outside of individual agency.
It is important to understand that this is not only a personal crisis. When my friend articulates here that he is not a nerd and hence Mastodon is not for him, it is not only about him. It also is about the subject position of the user being different than that of the nerd.  


=== Identity construction, validation and agency: the neoliberal subjectivity ===
== The return of the server: infrastructure and subjectivity ==
The signup process is a specific moment in contemporary user practice, and it provides a privileged moment for analysis. However, it is not the only moment of technological interpellation. After the signup process has been completed, Twitter and Mastodon still maintain some differences, but are working quite similar. This similarity is what made Mastodon to a viable alternative to Twitter in the first place.
Both the user and the nerd are subject positions of technological practice. One aspect in said crisis of user subjectivity is what I call 'the return of the server'. Even if scale is an important aspect for user experience, the difference between Twitter and Mastodon is not only one of numerical scale in terms of user count, but first and foremost one of organization on an infrastructural level. Twitter operates as a centralized platform; it is a unified service accessed through an app, and its data and processes are located in the cloud. Mastodon, however, runs on a decentral network of federated<ref>“Federation is a concept derived from political theory in which the various actors that constitute a network decide to cooperate collectively. Power and responsibility are distributed as they do so. In the context of social media, federated networks exist as different communities on different servers that can interoperate with each other, rather than existing as a single software or single platform.” (Mansoux and Abbing 125)</ref> servers connected by a shared protocol.


The most direct way of user interpellation on social media platforms is how they invite users to contribute. Most platforms use questions for that: Twitter asks on its web interface «What’s new?», exactly the same words as the Mastodon Tusky client. The Elk frontend for Mastodon puts it slightly different: «What’s going through your mind?», the Twitter app asks: «What is happening right now?», and Facebook even adds a personalised identifier when asking: «What are you doing right now, Shusha?»[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote4sym|<sup>4</sup>]]. As anthropologist Ignacio Siles observed, these are forms of ‹algorithmic interpellation›, and as such part of a personalisation process between users and platforms (Siles). Users in reverse are personificating platforms and algorithms too, for example they have mental images about the character of a platform. This call and answer between user and platform is part of a personal relationship between user and platform. Platforms engineer and maintain these relationships actively and consciously in various forms and intensities. But as my example of engagement prompts above shows, the management of relationship is present both on commercial and alternative platforms like Mastodon.
Of course, technically speaking big technologies and the cloud also operate on servers. Servers are still the main nodes in the infrastructure of the Internet: it is on servers that data is stored and where user requests are processed. But on big tech platforms, servers have been abstracted away in order to make technical systems scalable (Monroe). Servers have disappeared from the view of users due to this recent additional step in the chain of abstractions on which digital infrastructure is built. And with it, a contextual and materialist understanding of digital infrastructure disappeared as well. Specific machines, local contexts, and a diversity of practices turned into immaterial services and apps. Servers have been replaced with the cloud, a metaphor suggesting quite the opposite of the massive, energy-hungry data centers powering large scale digital infrastructure. Thus, in the age of cloud computing, we simply cannot know the number of servers Twitter is running on.


This observation indicates that user subjectivity includes more layers than the interpellation through infrastructural topology I discussed before. Users are continuously mobilised by their digital infrastructures as specific subject positions. But digital infrastructures are not operating in a void, they are part of a wider social, economic, political and cultural situation, that implies a broader notion of subjectivity itself. As sociologist Sarah Banet-Weiser has outlined in her extensive study on brand culture, this is broadly speaking a ‘consumer citizen’, the basic capitalist subjectivity per se (Banet-Weiser).
[[File:Mastodon-server.jpg|thumb|480px|Figure 2: Screenshot of the sign-up page on <nowiki>https://joinmastodon.org</nowiki> (08.06.2023).]]


The consumer citizen enacts fundamental values through consumption. Banet-Weiser traces this back to the post-war era in the US, with the proliferation of mass production and mass consumption. Since then, markets have changed towards addressing increasingly smaller niches, and in the way included identity and difference as part of consumer subjectivity. Today, «advanced capitalist dynamics manage, contain, and actually design identities, difference, and diversity as brands» (Banet-Weiser 52). The relationships between brands (and in our case platforms) and consumers is not structured by consumption anymore, but trough identity construction and validation. This includes new ways of consumer practice, that are fact unrecognised labor.
The return of the server happens very prominently at the first step of the signup process for Mastodon. Here, Mastodon asks users to pick a server and hence a specific context to join. In order to answer this, users need to identify themselves in ways that are different than on big technology platforms. When signing up to a commercial platform, users are asked to identify themselves as a classical autonomous (self-contained) liberal individual. In contrast, the sign-up process for Mastodon asks users to choose a server, which means identifying themselves in relation to a community first.  


The neoliberal subject is an ‘entrepreneur of the self’. It inherits autonomy and rationality from the classical liberal subject. But as feminist scholarship has showed through the study of changes in the representation of femininity in marketing (Banet-Weiser), or in new stereotypes (Gill), the neoliberal subject incorporates a focus on agency, free choice, and self-regulation that extends to self-surveillance.
In the 1960s, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser explained that the social and political order of the world are continuously updated in individuals by means of a process he called 'interpellation'. In his view, the subject does not exist independently of its surroundings, but is created and sustained (hailed) through calls of institutions (Althusser et al.), and in the context of this text: infrastructures. It is through their infrastructural organization that Twitter and Mastodon interpellate their users, and, as we have seen, this interpellation brings forward different imaginations of what a user is. This means that subjectivity is never only personal, or interior, but that the personal, the psychological, and the individual are deeply linked to the world and its social, economic, political, and cultural formations. My friend’s interpretation of the sign-up process for Mastodon as nerdy points to an understanding of servers being outside of the domain of users and—as technological artifacts—belonging to the nerd. But it also points to something deeper: as the sign-up process of Twitter indicates, contemporary user subjectivity is closely aligned with liberal subjectivity. This autonomous, calculating and self-regulating subject is a subject position in itself, serving as a background of user subjectivity. Hence, the process of infrastructural interpellation is not a deterministic process, but operates in relation to other callings, self-understandings, and already established subject positions. Infrastructural interpellation can be confirming existing normative subject positions, but as we have seen with Mastodon, it can also result in tensions. These tensions articulate not only a problem, but also a space for difference. Thus, interpellation through technology is a performative process that consists of numerous performative gestures that maintain identity, but also bear the possibilities of difference (Butler). This means that subjectivity is a place of being affected by the world, but also a place where change can happen.


We can clearly see how well the neoliberal ‹entrepreneur of the self› connects to the users of platforms, where identity is created and sustained through continuous acts of self-narration, embedded in a market of attention (Citton), and organised by metrics that feed back on self-validation turning into self-surveillance, and thus inducing pressure for ever continuing self-improvement (Grosser).
== Being a user between individual and community ==
As I have discussed, the request to choose a community at the beginning of an identification process creates tension between the conventions of the liberal subject (where communities always come after the subject) and the specific affordances of federation as infrastructural organization, which centers the communities around servers.


The focus on individual agency in neoliberal subjectivity is casting structural problems as individual failures. We can see this in the public discourse about the ramifications of digital technologies. It is the individual that is asked to train herself to spot the fake, to curate the feed, to master the tools, to block the cookies, to fight addiction, and so on. Neoliberalism “is structured by an individualism that has almost entirely replaced notions of the social or political” (Gill 443). We can see this neoliberal subjectivity also in educational initiatives, promoting digital self-defense and digital detox, thus hailing the user as self-regulating autonomous individual. To be clear, I am deeply grateful for these initiatives and use them in teaching regularly. It is all we have at the moment, and many of these initiatives manage to clearly articulate the structural dimensions of the problems they raise. However, they too address the user as the neoliberal subject.
This tension sparked a long debate in the Mastodon community about the difficulties newcomers experience with the sign-up process. At this point, a list of servers to join was provided on <nowiki>https://joinmastodon.org</nowiki> (the privileged information site for joining Mastodon). But due to the quick expansion of the Mastodon network, the list quickly grew into a cluttered, overwhelming list of servers that no one was able to seriously consider for orientation.  


Even if Twitter and Mastodon embody neoliberal subjectivity in the ways they call their users into action, there still are important differences in on what terrain the two platforms operate. Apart of the infrastructural dimension, the biggest difference between Mastodon and Twitter is the role data plays for them. Twitter is data driven in the sense that all data collected about the user, her interests, and patterns of interaction is used to calculate what this person gets to see. This includes advertisement, but also the posts displayed in the feed. On Mastodon in contrary, there are no advertisements and the feed is composed in chronological order, filtered through an elaborated system of relatedness[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote5sym|<sup>5</sup>]], but is basically static. This means that the appearances of posts can be explained by relations and actions of users, and not through a black box algorithm.  
In order to make it easier for people willing to join, the first move was to solve the problem by meeting the expectations of users (and with copying it the conventions of corporate platforms), and giving up the list in favor of promoting only one server: mastodon.social. Mastodon.social is one of the biggest instances (servers) operated by Mastodon GmbH, a nonprofit organization run by Eugene Rochko that is registered in Berlin (Eugene Rochko is the developer of Mastodon, but not the owner<ref>Mastodon is only one piece in a larger set of applications that exchange posts and contents through a shared protocol (ActivityPub), which includes not only the microblogging service of Mastodon (and its forks), but also, among others, Peertube, a video sharing platform, and Pixelfeed, an image-based platform not unlike Instagram. This larger ecosystem of interconnected services is called the “Fediverse.” In the Fediverse you can have content coming from different sources mixed into one feed, which is very different from the gated environments of big tech platforms.</ref>).


=== The empty subject of data ===
This earned sweeping critique from the community, which highlighted the dangers of centralization for the whole ecosystem and insisted on the nature of federation being exactly about community-centered infrastructure. Eventually, this was resolved by again putting up an overview of servers, but this time with the ability to filter it by regions and topics, language, and other types of differences. This solution is a strategy to remain loyal to federation- and community-based infrastructures by making the wealth of communities legible in order to facilitate choice.
Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have been developing as part of an emerging regime of data. This regime is much more extensive than social media platforms, but social media platforms have played an important role in its formation and the normalisation of user tracking, profiling and the operationalisation of categorisation into surveillance (Zuboff). As Wendy Chun observes, the production and maintenance of ‘authentic’ relationships between platform and users is fundamental to the data regime. It is through authenticity that we become transparent. To be a user, for her, is to play a specific role “in a drama called ‘big data’” (Chun 145). This play is scripted, and as we have seen in the discussion of prompts, the role of the users is to perform authenticity. If ever a user would have forgot her role, there are keys clear enough to bring him back to the play.  


The data collected through tracking, surveillance or voluntary disclosure however is operated not as representation of its source, but as proxy for open questions. A proxy is a stand-in for something that cannot be measured directly (O’Neil). Thus, proxies make the unknown computable. But by doing so, they “introduce uncertainty, even as they serve to reduce it” (Chun 136). The data about your browsing history is not meaning your browser history, but is taken as an indicator of personality, age, gender, interests, economic situation and many more, often secret categories. This uncertainty is also the space, where bias is located. The recorded traces we leave thus take on a life of their own.
[[File:Mastodon-serverlist-s.jpg|thumb|300px|Figure 3: Screenshot of the server list on <nowiki>https://joinmastodon.org/servers</nowiki> (08.06.2023).]]


Goriunova discusses this under the term ‘digital subject’: “neither a human being nor its representation [in data (authors clarification)] but a distance between the two.” (Goriunova, ‘The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons’ 128). For her, the relation between humans and their data is not representational, but organised through a ‘distance’, that is not extending between fixed points, but is subject to constant change (Goriunova, ‘The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons’). Distance can be used as another way of describing the uncertainty space of the proxy, and it is through distance that data projects its own subject.  
[[File:Masto-mobile.jpg|thumb|280px|Figure 4: Screenshot of the sign-up process start on the official Mastodon app (31.05.2023).]]


For law philosopher Antoinette Rouvroy, the subject of data is fundamentally empty. This is because data is never addressing the subject directly, but only on an infra-personal level of collected data points (fragmentary) and on a supra-individual level of categorisation (categorial). In data, meaning making is reduced into an automatic process of statistical analysis. Thus, the only subject data knows is a statistical body, a “‘probabilistic subject’ [which] is not the same as the actual, experiential, present and sentient subject.” (Rouvroy 151). Because data collection is unspecific towards its application, it is not methodical (that is: not meaningfully orientated towards knowledge), but operates purely on a numerical scale, where more data means better data.  
On the official mobile app (named Mastodon and also maintained by Mastodon GmbH), however, new users are still presented with mastodon.social as the default server. In order to choose another server, users are taken to the list on <nowiki>https://join.mastodon.org</nowiki>, which is a website outside the app. Thus, joining servers other than mastodon.social is discouraged by a complicated process that is difficult for newcomers to navigate. This difference in sign-up procedures on the web and in the app mirrors the tension of how users are conceptualized through technology: as a member of a community around federated servers versus a self-contained liberal individual of a service.


Big data constitutes its own reality, that is the base for the creation of a new probabilistic subject devoid of all meaningful relations to its point of origin. This replacement of the specific in favour of the statistical is also an important factor of AI applications, like LLM (large language models) like Chat-GPT, and automatic image generation systems like DALL-E (Bender et al.; Salvaggio; Salehi).
To conclude this analysis: Mastodon suggests a different user subject position than corporate big technology platforms: one oriented towards a community, and not an atomic, isolated self-contained individual. This interpellation comes from the technical principle of the federation of independent servers. The difference in interpellation leads to tensions both on the part of users as a crisis in subjectivity, as well as on the part of the platform handling its onboarding process. But while opening the user subject position towards communality, Mastodon still upholds the difference between users and those involved with providing the infrastructure: the administrators, the programmers, and the moderators. Thus, the user subject position offered by Mastodon is still a consumer, clearly separate from that of the producer and the provider of the service, as with big tech platforms.<ref>Of course, another important difference between Mastodon and big tech platforms is the role data plays in them, and this difference adds more complexity to the question of user subject position. Yet this discussion is beyond the scope of this text.</ref>


If we think back to the discussion of the neoliberal subjectivity of the ‘entrepreneur of the self’, we can see how well it connects to the behaviourist nature of the data regime. A behaviouristic perspective is not interested in reasoning, sense-making process, affects or motivation, just in behaviour – observable acts. This is extending radically the disconnection of context of the autonomous, rational and calculating liberal subject into data, with new consequences. As Rouvroy points out, data is organising the world not by cause and effect, but by controlling contingency. Data controls what posts will show up in your Instagram feed, what information is available to you, what relations will be sustained through it, but it also decides upon access to and conditions of services and resources. Through this control of contingency, data behaviourism is intervening in the faculty of people to make choices, it prescribes the very conditions of agency (Rouvroy). This is a crucial part of an ongoing transformation of subjectivity, that Rouvroy describes as a process of draining, and what has been described in literary references as ‘zombiefication’ (Andersen and Pold). With the emptying of the subject through data comes a destabilisation of subjectivity of the user: the feeling of being seen but not meant. On a governmental level, this is often the other way around: being meant but not seen.
== ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' as protagonist ==
Since subject position are cultural forms, cultural and artistic practice in particular make for a privileged position for developing methods and practices of doing otherwise.  


The behaviourist understanding of humans is the opposite of a perspective considering subjectivity. Subjectivity is the space, where “the social or cultural ‘gets inside’, and transforms and reshapes our relationships to ourselves and others.” (Gill 433). Considering subjectivity thus means insisting on context, thick meaning, and relations. Asking about subjectivity in data regimes is claiming distance – this twisted and thick relation between persons and data – as political terrain, as also Goriunova hightlights (Goriunova, ‘The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons’). And claiming distance is asking about other options and ways of living with our data subjects, it is a struggle over meaning and agency.
One example of alternative thinking through how subject positions are invoked by means of technology is formulated in ''A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers''. This is an updated version of an older text, ''The Feminist Server Manifesto'' (Constant). Both of them were written by a “community of people interested in digital discomfort,” as the Wishlist puts it. Both the Manifesto and the Wishlist<ref>For reasons of readability, I will use “Trans*Feminist Servers” to refer to issues addressed in both texts.</ref> choose the server as their protagonist, in the form of a self-articulation. A protagonist is what Goriunova calls a “figure of thought” that offers a “position from which a territory can be mapped and creatively produced” (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”). By means of this self-articulation, the ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' produce different imaginations of technology that include the role of the user.


=== Being user otherwise: Feminist Servers ===
[[File:Transfeministservers-s.jpg|thumb|642px|Figure 5: Screenshots of the The Wishlist for *TransFeminist Servers (2022), and the Manifesto for Feminist Servers (2014) (from left to right).]]
So, insisting on thinking through subjectivity and usership is part of the struggle over subjectivity, and the political subject, and it raises questions of agency. How can the project of subjectivity be something to actively engage in? In short: is it possible to use otherwise?


One example for alternative thinking through how subject positions are invoked trough technology is formulated in ''The Wishlist for *TransFeminist Servers'' (''A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers''). This is an actualisation of an older text, the ''Feminist Server Manifesto'' (Constant), both were written by a «community of people interested in digital discomfort», as the Wishlist puts it.
At the center of this articulation are questions of servitude. “Are you being served?” was the title of a workshop that took place in Brussels in 2014. During a three-day event at Constant, an artist-run space in Brussels (About Constant), artists and practitioners met to discuss concepts and exchange alternative practices involving servers along the questions of who is being served, by whom, and what the conditions of services are (Hofmüller et al.). Introducing the question of servitude allows for a discussion of relationships to and through technology. This involves the subject positions they invoke. Users of platforms are encouraged to believe to be at the receiving end of servitude through a discourse about use-fulness and use-ability, but services are provided under very specific conditions marked by privilege. The chances of being served are not equally distributed, and vulnerable communities often find that they, their content, and their communication are not protected by platforms (to be clear, this includes Mastodon, which is notoriously white and has been proven to be hostile towards people of color in far too many cases). Servitude is a very specific relation between users and technology. It includes the strong distinction between users and the contexts of running services, including the materialites of infrastructures and all of the practices that are needed to make a service work. Servitude is deeply marked by abstraction from specific contexts, with uncomfortable links to slavery as the most radical abstraction, or thingification. This link is still present in technological terminology of master and slave relationship, or less explicitly, in talking about clients and servers. ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' try to open up these relationships towards other, more careful ones while keeping in mind the “swamp of interdependencies they are with” (A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers).


Both the Manifesto and the Wishlist choose the server as their protagonist, in the form of a self-articulation. A protagonist is what Goriunova calls a figure of thought that offers „a position from which a territory can be mapped and creatively produced“ (Goriunova, ‘Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons’). Through this self-articulation, the ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' produce a different imaginations of technology, including the roles of the user.
Feminist*Servers exist as communities and real infrastructures (List of Feminist Servers) out of a real need to create safer spaces online for vulnerable communities (spideralex). Thus, ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' are both a thinking tool and communal infrastructures (Snelting and spideralex), which means that their work is both narrative work and lived technological practice. This is radical in the sense that it re-articulates the whole territory—both conceptually, with the protagonist of the server, as well as practically, in that it operates technology as a community project.  


At the center of this articulation are questions of servitude. „Are you being served?“ is the title of publication documenting the worksession with the same name, that took place in Brussels in 2014 (Hofmüller et al.). During a 3 day event at Constant, an artist-run space in Brussels[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote6sym|<sup>6</sup>]], artists and practitioners met to discuss concepts and exchange alternative practices involving servers. Who is being served, and are the conditions of services?
[[File:Anarcha-membercard-final.jpg|thumb|480px|Figure 6: Handwritten membership card of Anarchaserver. (image: the author).]]


The question of servitude challenges notions of use-fullness and use-ability with their focus on functionality, efficiency, and scaleability, that are markers of big technology’s abstraction. I have argued this to be an active refusal of the ideological function of infrastructure, leading to an exchange of functionality for communality, opening up technological practice into a space to be inhabited (Niederberger).
I have argued this to be an active refusal of the master voice of the infrastructure of functionality and abstraction. This refusal opens up technological practice into a space to be inhabited (Niederberger). And as both texts insist, ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' exist only because they are cared for by a community, as the need of having them is expressed in acts of creating them. Instead of abstraction, the territory offered by ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' is therefore structured by affection. This foregrounds practices of care: administration, maintenance, moderation (meaning the entire scope of making a community work), documentation, fund raising, and last but not least also using the services, which comes with the responsibility of monitoring and providing feedback on functionality. The wiki of Anarchaserver (one of the many ''Trans*Feminist Servers'') refers to the roles included in ''Trans*Feminist Server'' practice as “guardians, fire extinguisher, interfaces and scribes” (anarchaserver). It is interesting to note how these roles point towards specific needs, dependencies, and meaningful relations—that is, embodied contexts.


The change of perspective offered by using the server as a protagonist also sheds light on big technologies and the subjectivities they invoke: while users should be on the receiving end of servitude, they are so only under very specific conditions marked by privilege: the chances of being served are not equally distributed, and often vulnerable communities find themselves and their content not protected by consumer technology platforms.  
Hence, being part of a ''Trans*Feminist Server'' means participating in an ongoing negotiation of the conditions for serving and service. Here, use is not an act of consumption, but one of creation and re-creation that includes the whole territory of relationships with a community and—importantly—with infrastructure itself.  


And this is one of the reason for Feminist*Servers to exist as communities and real existing infrastructures[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote7sym|<sup>7</sup>]]: a real need to protect themselfes, content and communication, and to create safer spaces online for vulnerable communities (spideralex). So, Trans*Feminist Servers are both a thinking tool and lived technological practice (Snelting and spideralex).
== Conclusion ==
In the aftermath of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, many users considered Mastodon as an alternative. Whereas it is a microblogging service like Twitter, it is not corporate-owned but is a network of connected servers, often operated by communities and nonprofit organizations. However, the change from Twitter to Mastodon proved difficult for many users. I analyze this as a crisis in the user subject position provoked by what I call 'the return of the server'. As tangible infrastructures, servers have been abstracted away from the user perspective due to a further step in the abstraction of digital technology, the cloud, where users deal with seamless fluid processes, dynamic availability, and decontextualized services. Bringing back servers as a central element in signing up to a service asks users to identify themselves not as autonomous individuals, but with respect to a community. This is very different than the consumer choices of big data platforms. To be a user is therefore not self-evident, but deeply shaped by the infrastructural organization of technology, a process Althusser called interpellation. This process also constitutes the subject position of the user as a shared imagination, against which individual subjectivity can be developed. Subjectivity therefore can be seen as a link between the personal and the structural, the individual and the shared, and thus it is a place of being affected but still a place for agency.  


''Trans*Feminist Server'' offer through their reformulation relationships of care instead of extraction. This foregrounds practices of care: administration, maintenance, moderation (meaning the whole work of making a community work), documentation, and last but not least also using the services and giving feedback on functionality. The wiki of one of the feminist servers names the roles included in Feminist Server practice as “Guardians, fire extinguisher, interfaces and scribes” (anarchaserver).
I discussed ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' as an example of opening the territory for a relation not only to a community, but also to technology and infrastructure itself. ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' are both narratives and situated technological practice, and through this they are able to re-articulate a territory of technological relations as a whole. They do so by using the server as a protagonist who offers a discussion and a terrain for practice, being both narrative work and lived technological practice. As part of their narrative work, they raise questions of servitude: what does it mean to be served and to serve? Thus, ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' formulate different relations, informed by care and maintenance and not by abstraction. This also raises new possibilities for user subject positions: to be a user of a ''Trans*Feminist Server'' means being part of an ongoing negotiation about the conditions of services and serving as a part of a community, but also as a part of technological practice on the level infrastructure itself.


Careful relationality is – as we have seen – something that is denied for the liberal subject. As both texts insist: (Trans*)Feminist Servers exist only because they are cared for by a community, because the need of having them is expressed in acts of making them exist. The territory offered by ''Trans*Feminist Server'' thus is structured by affection, not extraction.  
Both Mastodon and ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' challenge the conventional consumer subject position of the user, who is a self-regulating autonomous liberal individual. Mastodon does this by suggesting the identification of a user being in relation to a community as an initial step in the sign-up process. Becoming a user on Mastodon therefore means becoming a member of a community first. ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' are community-run infrastructures and thus require being associated with a community as well. However, in a second step they offer also different relations to infrastructure itself in that they radically question relations of servitude and replace them with relations of care and maintenance. This opens up an ecology of practices, transforming use into a contribution far beyond consumption. Being a user on a ''Trans*Feminist Server'' thus means being part of the re-creation and maintenance both of the community and the infrastructure.


Both the narrative work in the ''Manifesto'' and the ''Wishlist'', and the lived work on communities and infrastructure can thus be seen as a practice of claiming distance. This practice is radical in the sense that it re-articulates the whole territory anew – both conceptually with the protagonist of the server, and practically. Also, distance itself is re-articulated through this practice as a more general relationship to technology, independent of data.
== Notes ==
<references />


Thus, being part of a ''Trans*Feminist Server'' means partaking in an ongoing negotiation of the conditions for serving and service. Use here is not an act of consumption, but one of creation and re-creation, that include the whole terrain of relationality with and through technology.
== Works cited ==
<div class="workscited">
''About'' ''Constant.'' https://constantvzw.org/site/-About-Constant-7-.html?lang=en. Accessed 19 June 2023.


=== Conclusion ===
''A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers''. 2022, https://etherpad.mur.at/p/tfs.
Data driven platforms engage users at the same time as customers (of a service), producers (of data), targets (of surveillance), and raw material (of statistical knowledge). User subjectivity is shaped through all these aspects. I have discussed the interpellation of infrastructural aspects like the server on the example of Mastodon in difference to Twitter. But on the level of interface, platform users are hailed as subjects of neoliberal capitalism, that enact central values like self-determination and free choice as part of user practice. The practice of users is part of what I called relationship management through platforms, that are mobilising authenticity as way of creating valuable data. This is an aspect of the empty subject put forward by data regimes. Data regimes don’t operate through representation, but by proxies and distance. Thus, data regimes create truth not about the world, but out of data. This truth is structured by correlation and statistics. But data regimes are not only detached from the lived reality of people, they are intervening into lifes through feedback based on categorisation and probability, controlling the conditions of existence indirectly, thus limiting the faculty of people to make choices, their agency.  


Because of subjectivity can be seen as a hinge between the personal and the structural, the individual and the shared, it opens possibilites of agency, that are not reproducing the patterns of exploitation. Insisting on subjectivity, I argue, opens a space for reclaiming the distance between the reality people live in and data. For this I discuss ''Trans*Feminist Servers'' as narrative work that is able to re-articulate a territory of technological relationality through the figure of the server as a protagonist. This territory articulated by that is structured by relations of care, and not extraction. Because ''Feminist Servers'' exist also as real infrastructures and communities, this conceptual re-articulation is not only a conceptual tool of critique, but also shared lived reality.
Althusser, Louis, et al. ''On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatuses''. Verso, 2014.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote1anc|1]]User Count Bot for all known Mastodon instances @mastodonusercount@mastodon.social
anarchaserver. ''Be a Guardian, a Fire Extinguisher, a Scriba, an Interface—Anarchaserver''. 2022, https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/Be_a_guardian,_a_fire_extinguisher,_a_scriba,_an_interface. Accessed 19 June 2023.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote2anc|2]]<nowiki>https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/</nowiki>
Banet-Weiser, Sarah. ''Authentic TM: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture''. NYU Press, 2012.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote3anc|3]]“Federation is a concept derived from political theory in which various actors that constitute a network decide to cooperate collectively. Power and responsibility are distributed as they do so. In the context of social media, federated networks exist as different communities on different servers that can interoperate with each other, rather than existing as a single software or single platform.” (Mansoux and Abbing 125)
Benjamin, Ruha. ''Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code''. Polity Press, 2019.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote4anc|4]]I collected these examples on my personal devices (Android mobile phone and MacBook), running a german language operating system. The original wording in german is: “Was gibt’s Neues?” (Twitter and Tusky), “Was geht dir gerade durch den Kopf?” (Elk) and “Was machst du gerade, Shusha?” (Facebook). All translations mine.
Boyd, Danah, and Kate Crawford. “CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” ''Information, Communication & Society'', vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, pp. 662–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote5anc|5]]A short explanation can be found here in the section of timelines: <nowiki>https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/08/what-is-mastodon/</nowiki>. For a more in-depth discussion see (Mansoux and Abbing)
Bucher, Taina. “The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms.” ''Information, Communication & Society'', vol. 20, no. 1, Jan 2017, pp. 30–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote6anc|6]]<nowiki>https://constantvzw.org/site/?lang=en</nowiki>
Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” ''Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre'', edited by Sue-Ellen Case, John Hopkins University Press, 1990, pp. 222–39.


[[Toward a Minor Tech:Niederberger5000#sdfootnote7anc|7]]There exist different feminist servers, a list can be found in the history of one of them (anarchaserver): <nowiki>https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/History_of_Anarchaserver_and_Feminists_Servers_visit_this_section</nowiki>
Constant. ''[Version 0.1]'' ''A Feminist Server''. 2014, https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/06/03/version-0-1-a-feminist-server-constantvzw/. Accessed 19 June 2023.


=== Reference ===
Couldry, Nick, and Ulises Mejias. ''The Cost of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism''. Stanford University Press, 2019.
''A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers''. 2022, <nowiki>https://etherpad.mur.at/p/tfs</nowiki>.


Althusser, Louis, et al. ''On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatuses''. Verso, 2014.
Devendorf, Laura, and Elizabeth Goodman. ''The Algorithm Multiple, the Algorithm Material: Reconstructing Creative Practice''. https://www.slideshare.net/egoodman/the-algorithm-multiple-the-algorithm-material-reconstructing-creative-practice. The Contours of Algorithmic Life, UC Davis, 2015.
 
Eubanks, Virginia. ''Automating Inequality. How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor''. St. Martin’s Press, 2018.


anarchaserver. ''Be a Guardian, a Fire Extinguisher, a Scriba, an Interface - Anarchaserver''. 2022, <nowiki>https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/Be_a_guardian,_a_fire_extinguisher,_a_scriba,_an_interface</nowiki>.
Gill, Rosalind, and Akane Kanay. “Mediating Neoliberal Capitalism: Affect, Subjectivity and Inequality.” ''Journal of Communication'', vol. 68, no. 2, Apr 2018, pp. 318–26, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy002.


Andersen, Christian Ulrik, and Søren Bro Pold. ‘The User as a Character, Narratives of Datafied Platforms’. ''Computational Culture'', no. 8, July 2021, <nowiki>http://computationalculture.net/the-user-as-a-character-narratives-of-datafied-platforms/</nowiki>.
Goriunova, Olga. “The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons.” ''Theory, Culture and Society'', vol. 36, no. 6, 2019, pp. 125–45, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419840409.


Banet-Weiser, Sarah. ''Authentic TM: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture''. NYU Press, 2012.
---. “Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons.” ''Aesthetics of the Commons'', edited by Felix Stalder et al., Diaphanes, 2021, pp. 41–61.


Bender, Emily M., et al. ‘On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜’. ''Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency'', Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, pp. 610–23. ''ACM Digital Library'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922</nowiki>.
Hall, Stuart. “The Toad in the Garden: Thatcherism among the Theorists.” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, Macmillan Education, 1988, pp. 35–57.


Benjamin, Ruha. ''Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code''. Polity Press, 2019.
Hofmüller, Reni, et al. ''Are You Being Served? (Notebooks)''. Constant, 2014, https://areyoubeingserved.constantvzw.org/AreYouBeingServed.pdf.


Boyd, Danah, and Kate Crawford. ‘CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.’ ''Information, Communication & Society'', vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, pp. 662–79, <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878</nowiki>.
Iliadis, Andrew, and Federica Russo. “Critical Data Studies: An Introduction.” ''Big Data & Society'', no. 1–7, Oct 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238.


Bucher, Taina. ‘The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms’. ''Information, Communication & Society'', vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 30–44. ''Taylor and Francis+NEJM'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086</nowiki>.
Iqbal, Mansoor. “Twitter Revenue and Usage Statistics (2023).” ''Business of Apps'', 2 May 2023, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/.


Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. ''Discriminating Data: Correlation, Neighborhoods, and the New Politics of Recognition''. MIT Press, 2021.
Karizat, Nadia, et al. “Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance.” ''Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction'', vol. 5, no. CSCW2, 2021, p. 1.


Citton, Yves. ''The Ecology of Attention''. Polity Press, 2016.
Lialina, Olia. ''Turing Complete User: Resisting Alienation in Human-Computer-Interaction''. Heidelberg University Publishing, 2021.


Constant. ''[Version 0.1] A Feminist Server''. 3 June 2014, <nowiki>https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/06/03/version-0-1-a-feminist-server-constantvzw/</nowiki>.
''List of Feminist Servers.'' History of Anarchaserver and Feminists Servers visit this section. https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/History_of_Anarchaserver_and_Feminists_Servers_visit_this_section#List_of_Feminist_servers. Accessed 19 June 2023.


Couldry, Nick, and Ulises Mejias. ''The Cost of Connection. How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism.'' Stanford University Press, 2019.
Mansoux, Aymeric, and Roel Roscam Abbing. “Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS.” ''The Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture'', edited by Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs, Institute of Network Cultures / transmediale e.V., 2020, pp. 125–40.


Devendorf, Laura, and Elizabeth Goodman. ''The Algorithm Multiple, the Algorithm Material: Reconstructing Creative Practice''. <nowiki>https://www.slideshare.net/egoodman/the-algorithm-multiple-the-algorithm-material-reconstructing-creative-practice</nowiki>. The Contours of Algorithmic Life, UC Davis.
McNeil, Joanne. Lurking. ''How a Person Became a User''. MCD, 2020.


Eubanks, Virginia. ''Automating Inequality. How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor''. St. Martin’s Press, 2018.
Monroe, Dwayn. “Seeding the Cloud.” ''Logic'', no. 16, 27 Mar 2022, pp. 91–102.


Gill, Rosalind. ‘Culture and Subjectivity in Neoliberal and Postfeminist Times’. ''Subjectivity'', vol. 25, 2008, pp. 432–45, <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.28</nowiki>.
Niederberger, Shusha. “Feminist Server—Visibility and Functionality: Digital Infrastructure as a Common Project.” Springerin | ''Hefte Für Gegenwartskunst'', no. 4, Aug 2019, pp. 8–9.


Goriunova, Olga. ‘The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons’. ''Theory, Culture and Society'', vol. 36, no. 6, 2019.
O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown, 2016.


---. ‘Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons’. ''Aesthetics of The Commons'', edited by Felix Stalder et al., Diaphanes, 2021.
Rader, Emilee, and Rebecca Gray. “Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed.” ''Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems'', Apr 2015, pp. 173–82, https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174.


Grosser, Benjamin. ‘What Do Metrics Want? How Quantification Prescribes Social Interaction on Facebook’. ''Computational Culture'', no. 4, Nov. 2014. ''computationalculture.net'', <nowiki>http://computationalculture.net/what-do-metrics-want/</nowiki>.
Rouvroy, Antoinette. “The End(s) of Critique: Data-Behaviourism vs. Due-Process.” ''Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn: The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology'', edited by Katja De Vries and Mireille Hildebrandt, Routledge, 2013, pp. 143–65.


Hofmüller, Reni, et al. ''Are You Being Served? (Notebooks)''. Constant, 2014, <nowiki>https://areyoubeingserved.constantvzw.org/AreYouBeingServed.pdf</nowiki>.
Seaver, Nick. “Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems.” ''Big Data & Society'', vol. 4, no. 2, Nov 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104.


Iliadis, Andrew, and Federica Russo. ‘Critical Data Studies: An Introduction’. ''Big Data & Society'', no. 1–7, 2016, <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238</nowiki>.
Siles, Ignacio, et al. “The Mutual Domestication of Users and Algorithmic Recommendations on Netflix.” ''Communication, Culture & Critique'', vol. 12, no. 4, Dec 2019, pp. 499–518, https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz025.


Mansoux, Aymeric, and Roel Roscam Abbing. ‘Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS’. ''The Eternal Network. The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture'', edited by Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs, Institute of Network Cultures / transmediale e.V., 2020, pp. 125–40.
Silverman, David, and Paul Atkinson. “Kundera’s Immortality: The Interview Society and the Invention of the Self.” ''Qualitative Inquiry'', vol. 3, no. 3, Sep 1997, pp. 304–25.


Monroe, Dwayn. ‘Seeding the Cloud’. ''Logic'', no. 16, 2022, pp. 91–102.
Snelting, Femke, and spideralex. ''Forms of Ongoingness. Interview by Cornelia Sollfrank'', Video, transcript, 16 Sept. 2018, http://creatingcommons.zhdk.ch/forms-of-ongoingness/.


Niederberger, Shusha. ‘Feminist Server – Visibility and Functionality. Digital Infrastructure as a Common Project’. ''Springerin | Hefte Für Gegenwartskunst'', no. 4, 2019, pp. 8–9.
spideralex. “CREATING NEW WORLDS with Cyberfeminist Ideas and Practices.” ''Beautiful Warriors: Technofeminist Praxis in the Twenty-First Century'', edited by Cornelia Sollfrank, Minor Compositions, 2020, pp. 35–56.


O’Neil, Cathy. ''Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy''. Crown, 2016.
Srnicek, Nick. ''Platform Capitalism''. Polity Press, 2016.
</div>


Rader, Emilee, and Rebecca Gray. ‘Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed’. ''Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems'', Association for Computing Machinery, 2015, pp. 173–82. ''ACM Digital Library'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174</nowiki>.
[[Category:Toward a Minor Tech]]
[[Category:Toward a Minor Tech]]
[[Category:5000 words]]
[[Category:5000 words]]

Latest revision as of 19:34, 13 September 2023

Shusha Niederberger

Calling the User:
Interpellation and Narration of User Subjectivity in Mastodon and Trans*Feminist Servers

Calling the User: Interpellation and Narration of User Subjectivity in Mastodon and Trans*Feminist Servers

Abstract

In recent years, a large body of work has analyzed the cultural and social ramifications of data-driven digital environments that currently structure digital practice. However, the position of the user has scarcely been developed in this field.

In this paper I discuss how user subject positions are invoked by digital infrastructures as an alternative to big technology platforms. With subject positions I mean a shared and often unarticulated understanding of what kind of technological practice is meant when we talk about users: user as a cultural form. I start with the analysis of a crisis in user subjectivity as it manifested in the migratory waves from Twitter to Mastodon at the end of 2022, after Elon Musk bought Twitter. Like Twitter, Mastodon is a microblogging service, but it operates as a network of connected servers run by nonprofit organizations and communities. I argue that Mastodon—by way of its infrastructural organization around servers and communities—invokes a different subject position of the user than the self-contained autonomous liberal subject, one that is based on a relationship with a community. In a second case study, I discuss how the artistic activist practices of Trans*Feminist Servers create a territory to rethink relations to technology itself, most prominently through raising questions of servitude: what does it mean to serve and to be served? I argue that through this, Trans*Feminist Servers are able to reformulate use as part of relations of care and maintenance and implement them in their technological practice. As I conclude, both Mastodon and Trans*Feminist Servers project a user exceeding the neoliberal subject. While Mastodon does so by proposing a subject position related to a community first, Trans*feminist Servers go a step further and moreover open use as a practice beyond consumption, thus operate on relations to infrastructure itself.

Introduction

People are constantly involved in a process of becoming a user through technology. Today, technology usually means data-driven environments that permeate everyday life, from the personal to the professional sphere, and shape the ways we relate to each other, to ourselves, and to the world as well as how we organize on a social and political level. Data is everywhere, and large amounts of data are produced by users through interactions with platforms and cloud-based digital infrastructures. What does it mean to be a user today? How does data-driven technology profit not only from user interaction, but also produce the 'user'? How can we think through the relations of platforms and users in ways that offer different imaginations, and thus open up a space to act?

This article is interested in the user as a cultural form, a mostly implicit and unarticulated shared understanding of what kind of technological practice is meant when we talk about users. This is not a psychological perspective focused on the inner life of an individual, neither it is an anthropological view of a group of living persons in their specific cultural contexts. The user as a cultural form is concerned with subjectivity, but as shared imaginations. Subjectivity itself is individual, the temporal situation of a person through which individuals makes sense of the world. It is a continuous process of becoming particular in relation to the complexities of the world. But as philosopher Olga Goriunova highlights, subjectivity is always developed in relation to shared imaginations about what it means to be in the world, e.g., as a woman, an adult, or — in our case — a user. These shared cultural imaginations are called 'subject positions' (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”). They are role models or figurations and provide a position in the world from which to make sense. As shared imaginations, subject positions are articulated and developed in the cultural domain. Furthermore, they are also aesthetic positions in the sense that they formulate a position from where practice is possible, as Goriunova insists. Thus subject positions are shaped by practice and the communities around them. Goriunova has exemplified this for very specific practices at the intersection between commons and digital activist/artistic practices (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”), but the principle of linking practice and subjectivity also applies to the more general field of everyday use.

Despite their central position in data, users are considered only at the margins of the current critical discourses about the implications of data-driven environments. In the field of Critical Data Studies, a substantial body of work emerged about the cultural and political ramifications of data-driven environments (Boyd and Crawford; Iliadis and Russo). It raises important questions about flaws and bias in data (Eubanks), how data-driven systems enhance inequality (O’Neil), extend colonial modes of exploitation and thingification (Couldry and Mejias), and install new forms of discrimination (Benjamin). However, the position of the user remains underdeveloped in this field and is primarily discussed in terms of abuse and exploitation.

But big data is not only a new way of organizing and operationalizing knowledge obtained from users, but constitutes a new mode of signification. As law philosopher Antoinette Rouvroy explains, data produces meaning out of itself, and not about the world. The data about a user’s browsing history does not mean her journey surfing the web, but is taken as an indicator of personality, age, gender, interests, economic situation, and many more, often secret categories. The recorded traces users leave thus take on a life of their own. This is a process of signification that is not indexical. Thus data does not operate through representation or causality, but by probability and statistics. Goriunova suggests the term 'distance' to describe this nonindexical relation between people and data (Goriunova, “The Digital Subject”). It is through distance that big data produces new modes of governmentality and as well as new subjects, with far-reaching consequences, e.g., for the legal domain (Rouvroy).

How users make sense of this distance is investigated in another emerging field I call 'User Studies'. It is a body of work in anthropology that addresses sense-making processes about algorithms and platforms (Siles et al.; Bucher; Rader, and Gray; Devendorf and Goodman). These studies articulate technology not as essentialist independent artefacts, but as something that is created through shared praxis, as culture (Seaver). They are an important contribution to the understanding of the position users have in the contemporary data-driven digital world. However, through their focus on users as individuals and on bottom-up sense-making processes, they are only marginally concerned with the subjectivity of users, discussing it under the term of identity (Karizat et al.). They often fail to address the political dimensions as articulated in Critical Data Studies and do not consider the cultural forms of subject positions.

Subjectivity is linked not only to technology, but also to the broader sociocultural environment. This has been a recurrent topic in Cultural Studies (Hall). Here, the term 'subjectivity' has a meaning similar to 'subject positions', as explained above. Especially in feminist scholarship, there is an ongoing debate about how subjectivity is shaped by neoliberal formations (Banet-Weiser) and how it responds to critical perspectives, incorporating them into new narratives about femininity as self-empowered and independent, however problematic and conflicting they may be (Gill and Kanay). This body of work highlights the role of narratives mobilizing values, which circulate in a culture deeply shaped by capitalist dynamics. However, it is not directly concerned with users and big data technologies, but provides a backdrop of the manifold ways culture and institutions are involved in the creation, maintenance, and transformation of widely shared basic forms of subjectivity that the subject position of the user inherit.

The user as a distinct part of the cultural history of technology is only rarely specifically discussed. Notable examples are Olia Lialina, who mapped conceptualizations of the user in the historical discourse in HCI (human-computer interface) (Lialina), and Joanne McNeil, who traced a cultural history of the Internet from the perspective of users themselves, highlighting the diversity of experiences and cultural differences that manifest in and through technology (McNeil).

The shared imaginations of user subject positions as a specific position in technological practice is deeply political, because it is not only a bottom-up sense-making process as investigated by Users Studies, but claims subjectivity as precisely that place where the power relations in technology, as analyzed in Critical Data Studies, are inscribed in the self-understanding of users, thus reproducing them. As already explained, this analysis takes subjectivity—and in extension subject positions—as a place of being affected, but also as a place of claiming agency. This analysis follows Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation (Althusser et al.), draws on performative concepts of identity (Butler), and extends a line of thinking that considers how subjectivities are both expressed in and shaped by mass media (Silverman and Atkinson).

In this paper I will bring these strands of thinking together through an analysis of two case studies. The first is an analysis of a contemporary event: the wave of migration from Twitter to Mastodon following the acquisition of the former by Elon Musk. I argue that some of the difficulties of switching to Mastodon can be analyzed as a crisis in the subject position of the user, and I will discuss the role of infrastructural organization in this crisis.

Because subject positions live and are transformed in the cultural field, cultural and artistic practice provide a privileged position of developing methods and practices of doing otherwise. In the second case study I discuss Trans*Feminist Servers as an artistic-activist strategy on the terrain of cultural imagination of technology itself. Trans*Feminist Servers aim at developing other subjectivities and fostering different practices of being a user, both as a conceptual tool and as lived technological practice. This allows reclaiming user practice as a place for careful relationships not only with a community (as in the first case study of Mastodon’s interpellation of user subjectivity), but also with technology itself.

The Twitter crisis

When Elon Musk bought Twitter at the end of October 2022, people started discussing alternatives. One of them was Mastodon—like Twitter, a micro-blogging service. Unlike Twitter, Mastodon is not corporate-owned. It is a network of connected servers that are often run by small collectives and nonprofit organizations. Following the acquisition of Twitter by Musk and during every wave of policy change that followed, the Mastodon network showed waves of new registrations. During little more than three months, the Mastodon network grew from 4.5 to 9 million users and, more significantly, from 3,700 to 17,000 servers (according to the User Count Bot for all known Mastodon instances @mastodonusercount@mastodon.social). For comparison purposes: Twitter has 368 million users (Iqbal), so even with the steady growth of Mastodon’s user count, changing from Twitter to Mastodon is a movement through technological scale, with many consequences (because platforms thrive on network effects: the more numerous their users, the more valuable the platform is for everybody [Srnicek 45]). But on the part of the users, this was often experienced as a crisis in subjectivity:

Figure 1: Screenshot of a Twitter post by a friend of mine: “As long as the alternatives (somewhat pointedly formulated) are ‘from nerds for nerds,’ this discussion is of little use. This is just how nerds accuse everyone else of being lazy. I would be more interested in discussing who should be responsible for a more inclusive web (commons, public service).” (author’s highlighting and translation)

It is important to understand that this is not only a personal crisis. When my friend articulates here that he is not a nerd and hence Mastodon is not for him, it is not only about him. It also is about the subject position of the user being different than that of the nerd.

The return of the server: infrastructure and subjectivity

Both the user and the nerd are subject positions of technological practice. One aspect in said crisis of user subjectivity is what I call 'the return of the server'. Even if scale is an important aspect for user experience, the difference between Twitter and Mastodon is not only one of numerical scale in terms of user count, but first and foremost one of organization on an infrastructural level. Twitter operates as a centralized platform; it is a unified service accessed through an app, and its data and processes are located in the cloud. Mastodon, however, runs on a decentral network of federated[1] servers connected by a shared protocol.

Of course, technically speaking big technologies and the cloud also operate on servers. Servers are still the main nodes in the infrastructure of the Internet: it is on servers that data is stored and where user requests are processed. But on big tech platforms, servers have been abstracted away in order to make technical systems scalable (Monroe). Servers have disappeared from the view of users due to this recent additional step in the chain of abstractions on which digital infrastructure is built. And with it, a contextual and materialist understanding of digital infrastructure disappeared as well. Specific machines, local contexts, and a diversity of practices turned into immaterial services and apps. Servers have been replaced with the cloud, a metaphor suggesting quite the opposite of the massive, energy-hungry data centers powering large scale digital infrastructure. Thus, in the age of cloud computing, we simply cannot know the number of servers Twitter is running on.

Figure 2: Screenshot of the sign-up page on https://joinmastodon.org (08.06.2023).

The return of the server happens very prominently at the first step of the signup process for Mastodon. Here, Mastodon asks users to pick a server and hence a specific context to join. In order to answer this, users need to identify themselves in ways that are different than on big technology platforms. When signing up to a commercial platform, users are asked to identify themselves as a classical autonomous (self-contained) liberal individual. In contrast, the sign-up process for Mastodon asks users to choose a server, which means identifying themselves in relation to a community first.

In the 1960s, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser explained that the social and political order of the world are continuously updated in individuals by means of a process he called 'interpellation'. In his view, the subject does not exist independently of its surroundings, but is created and sustained (hailed) through calls of institutions (Althusser et al.), and in the context of this text: infrastructures. It is through their infrastructural organization that Twitter and Mastodon interpellate their users, and, as we have seen, this interpellation brings forward different imaginations of what a user is. This means that subjectivity is never only personal, or interior, but that the personal, the psychological, and the individual are deeply linked to the world and its social, economic, political, and cultural formations. My friend’s interpretation of the sign-up process for Mastodon as nerdy points to an understanding of servers being outside of the domain of users and—as technological artifacts—belonging to the nerd. But it also points to something deeper: as the sign-up process of Twitter indicates, contemporary user subjectivity is closely aligned with liberal subjectivity. This autonomous, calculating and self-regulating subject is a subject position in itself, serving as a background of user subjectivity. Hence, the process of infrastructural interpellation is not a deterministic process, but operates in relation to other callings, self-understandings, and already established subject positions. Infrastructural interpellation can be confirming existing normative subject positions, but as we have seen with Mastodon, it can also result in tensions. These tensions articulate not only a problem, but also a space for difference. Thus, interpellation through technology is a performative process that consists of numerous performative gestures that maintain identity, but also bear the possibilities of difference (Butler). This means that subjectivity is a place of being affected by the world, but also a place where change can happen.

Being a user between individual and community

As I have discussed, the request to choose a community at the beginning of an identification process creates tension between the conventions of the liberal subject (where communities always come after the subject) and the specific affordances of federation as infrastructural organization, which centers the communities around servers.

This tension sparked a long debate in the Mastodon community about the difficulties newcomers experience with the sign-up process. At this point, a list of servers to join was provided on https://joinmastodon.org (the privileged information site for joining Mastodon). But due to the quick expansion of the Mastodon network, the list quickly grew into a cluttered, overwhelming list of servers that no one was able to seriously consider for orientation.

In order to make it easier for people willing to join, the first move was to solve the problem by meeting the expectations of users (and with copying it the conventions of corporate platforms), and giving up the list in favor of promoting only one server: mastodon.social. Mastodon.social is one of the biggest instances (servers) operated by Mastodon GmbH, a nonprofit organization run by Eugene Rochko that is registered in Berlin (Eugene Rochko is the developer of Mastodon, but not the owner[2]).

This earned sweeping critique from the community, which highlighted the dangers of centralization for the whole ecosystem and insisted on the nature of federation being exactly about community-centered infrastructure. Eventually, this was resolved by again putting up an overview of servers, but this time with the ability to filter it by regions and topics, language, and other types of differences. This solution is a strategy to remain loyal to federation- and community-based infrastructures by making the wealth of communities legible in order to facilitate choice.

Figure 3: Screenshot of the server list on https://joinmastodon.org/servers (08.06.2023).
Figure 4: Screenshot of the sign-up process start on the official Mastodon app (31.05.2023).

On the official mobile app (named Mastodon and also maintained by Mastodon GmbH), however, new users are still presented with mastodon.social as the default server. In order to choose another server, users are taken to the list on https://join.mastodon.org, which is a website outside the app. Thus, joining servers other than mastodon.social is discouraged by a complicated process that is difficult for newcomers to navigate. This difference in sign-up procedures on the web and in the app mirrors the tension of how users are conceptualized through technology: as a member of a community around federated servers versus a self-contained liberal individual of a service.

To conclude this analysis: Mastodon suggests a different user subject position than corporate big technology platforms: one oriented towards a community, and not an atomic, isolated self-contained individual. This interpellation comes from the technical principle of the federation of independent servers. The difference in interpellation leads to tensions both on the part of users as a crisis in subjectivity, as well as on the part of the platform handling its onboarding process. But while opening the user subject position towards communality, Mastodon still upholds the difference between users and those involved with providing the infrastructure: the administrators, the programmers, and the moderators. Thus, the user subject position offered by Mastodon is still a consumer, clearly separate from that of the producer and the provider of the service, as with big tech platforms.[3]

Trans*Feminist Servers as protagonist

Since subject position are cultural forms, cultural and artistic practice in particular make for a privileged position for developing methods and practices of doing otherwise.

One example of alternative thinking through how subject positions are invoked by means of technology is formulated in A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers. This is an updated version of an older text, The Feminist Server Manifesto (Constant). Both of them were written by a “community of people interested in digital discomfort,” as the Wishlist puts it. Both the Manifesto and the Wishlist[4] choose the server as their protagonist, in the form of a self-articulation. A protagonist is what Goriunova calls a “figure of thought” that offers a “position from which a territory can be mapped and creatively produced” (Goriunova, “Uploading Our Libraries”). By means of this self-articulation, the Trans*Feminist Servers produce different imaginations of technology that include the role of the user.

Figure 5: Screenshots of the The Wishlist for *TransFeminist Servers (2022), and the Manifesto for Feminist Servers (2014) (from left to right).

At the center of this articulation are questions of servitude. “Are you being served?” was the title of a workshop that took place in Brussels in 2014. During a three-day event at Constant, an artist-run space in Brussels (About Constant), artists and practitioners met to discuss concepts and exchange alternative practices involving servers along the questions of who is being served, by whom, and what the conditions of services are (Hofmüller et al.). Introducing the question of servitude allows for a discussion of relationships to and through technology. This involves the subject positions they invoke. Users of platforms are encouraged to believe to be at the receiving end of servitude through a discourse about use-fulness and use-ability, but services are provided under very specific conditions marked by privilege. The chances of being served are not equally distributed, and vulnerable communities often find that they, their content, and their communication are not protected by platforms (to be clear, this includes Mastodon, which is notoriously white and has been proven to be hostile towards people of color in far too many cases). Servitude is a very specific relation between users and technology. It includes the strong distinction between users and the contexts of running services, including the materialites of infrastructures and all of the practices that are needed to make a service work. Servitude is deeply marked by abstraction from specific contexts, with uncomfortable links to slavery as the most radical abstraction, or thingification. This link is still present in technological terminology of master and slave relationship, or less explicitly, in talking about clients and servers. Trans*Feminist Servers try to open up these relationships towards other, more careful ones while keeping in mind the “swamp of interdependencies they are with” (A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers).

Feminist*Servers exist as communities and real infrastructures (List of Feminist Servers) out of a real need to create safer spaces online for vulnerable communities (spideralex). Thus, Trans*Feminist Servers are both a thinking tool and communal infrastructures (Snelting and spideralex), which means that their work is both narrative work and lived technological practice. This is radical in the sense that it re-articulates the whole territory—both conceptually, with the protagonist of the server, as well as practically, in that it operates technology as a community project.

Figure 6: Handwritten membership card of Anarchaserver. (image: the author).

I have argued this to be an active refusal of the master voice of the infrastructure of functionality and abstraction. This refusal opens up technological practice into a space to be inhabited (Niederberger). And as both texts insist, Trans*Feminist Servers exist only because they are cared for by a community, as the need of having them is expressed in acts of creating them. Instead of abstraction, the territory offered by Trans*Feminist Servers is therefore structured by affection. This foregrounds practices of care: administration, maintenance, moderation (meaning the entire scope of making a community work), documentation, fund raising, and last but not least also using the services, which comes with the responsibility of monitoring and providing feedback on functionality. The wiki of Anarchaserver (one of the many Trans*Feminist Servers) refers to the roles included in Trans*Feminist Server practice as “guardians, fire extinguisher, interfaces and scribes” (anarchaserver). It is interesting to note how these roles point towards specific needs, dependencies, and meaningful relations—that is, embodied contexts.

Hence, being part of a Trans*Feminist Server means participating in an ongoing negotiation of the conditions for serving and service. Here, use is not an act of consumption, but one of creation and re-creation that includes the whole territory of relationships with a community and—importantly—with infrastructure itself.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, many users considered Mastodon as an alternative. Whereas it is a microblogging service like Twitter, it is not corporate-owned but is a network of connected servers, often operated by communities and nonprofit organizations. However, the change from Twitter to Mastodon proved difficult for many users. I analyze this as a crisis in the user subject position provoked by what I call 'the return of the server'. As tangible infrastructures, servers have been abstracted away from the user perspective due to a further step in the abstraction of digital technology, the cloud, where users deal with seamless fluid processes, dynamic availability, and decontextualized services. Bringing back servers as a central element in signing up to a service asks users to identify themselves not as autonomous individuals, but with respect to a community. This is very different than the consumer choices of big data platforms. To be a user is therefore not self-evident, but deeply shaped by the infrastructural organization of technology, a process Althusser called interpellation. This process also constitutes the subject position of the user as a shared imagination, against which individual subjectivity can be developed. Subjectivity therefore can be seen as a link between the personal and the structural, the individual and the shared, and thus it is a place of being affected but still a place for agency.

I discussed Trans*Feminist Servers as an example of opening the territory for a relation not only to a community, but also to technology and infrastructure itself. Trans*Feminist Servers are both narratives and situated technological practice, and through this they are able to re-articulate a territory of technological relations as a whole. They do so by using the server as a protagonist who offers a discussion and a terrain for practice, being both narrative work and lived technological practice. As part of their narrative work, they raise questions of servitude: what does it mean to be served and to serve? Thus, Trans*Feminist Servers formulate different relations, informed by care and maintenance and not by abstraction. This also raises new possibilities for user subject positions: to be a user of a Trans*Feminist Server means being part of an ongoing negotiation about the conditions of services and serving as a part of a community, but also as a part of technological practice on the level infrastructure itself.

Both Mastodon and Trans*Feminist Servers challenge the conventional consumer subject position of the user, who is a self-regulating autonomous liberal individual. Mastodon does this by suggesting the identification of a user being in relation to a community as an initial step in the sign-up process. Becoming a user on Mastodon therefore means becoming a member of a community first. Trans*Feminist Servers are community-run infrastructures and thus require being associated with a community as well. However, in a second step they offer also different relations to infrastructure itself in that they radically question relations of servitude and replace them with relations of care and maintenance. This opens up an ecology of practices, transforming use into a contribution far beyond consumption. Being a user on a Trans*Feminist Server thus means being part of the re-creation and maintenance both of the community and the infrastructure.

Notes

  1. ↑ “Federation is a concept derived from political theory in which the various actors that constitute a network decide to cooperate collectively. Power and responsibility are distributed as they do so. In the context of social media, federated networks exist as different communities on different servers that can interoperate with each other, rather than existing as a single software or single platform.” (Mansoux and Abbing 125)
  2. ↑ Mastodon is only one piece in a larger set of applications that exchange posts and contents through a shared protocol (ActivityPub), which includes not only the microblogging service of Mastodon (and its forks), but also, among others, Peertube, a video sharing platform, and Pixelfeed, an image-based platform not unlike Instagram. This larger ecosystem of interconnected services is called the “Fediverse.” In the Fediverse you can have content coming from different sources mixed into one feed, which is very different from the gated environments of big tech platforms.
  3. ↑ Of course, another important difference between Mastodon and big tech platforms is the role data plays in them, and this difference adds more complexity to the question of user subject position. Yet this discussion is beyond the scope of this text.
  4. ↑ For reasons of readability, I will use “Trans*Feminist Servers” to refer to issues addressed in both texts.

Works cited

About Constant. https://constantvzw.org/site/-About-Constant-7-.html?lang=en. Accessed 19 June 2023.

A Wishlist for Trans*Feminist Servers. 2022, https://etherpad.mur.at/p/tfs.

Althusser, Louis, et al. On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatuses. Verso, 2014.

anarchaserver. Be a Guardian, a Fire Extinguisher, a Scriba, an Interface—Anarchaserver. 2022, https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/Be_a_guardian,_a_fire_extinguisher,_a_scriba,_an_interface. Accessed 19 June 2023.

Banet-Weiser, Sarah. Authentic TM: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture. NYU Press, 2012.

Benjamin, Ruha. Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press, 2019.

Boyd, Danah, and Kate Crawford. “CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, pp. 662–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.

Bucher, Taina. “The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, Jan 2017, pp. 30–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, edited by Sue-Ellen Case, John Hopkins University Press, 1990, pp. 222–39.

Constant. [Version 0.1] A Feminist Server. 2014, https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/06/03/version-0-1-a-feminist-server-constantvzw/. Accessed 19 June 2023.

Couldry, Nick, and Ulises Mejias. The Cost of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press, 2019.

Devendorf, Laura, and Elizabeth Goodman. The Algorithm Multiple, the Algorithm Material: Reconstructing Creative Practice. https://www.slideshare.net/egoodman/the-algorithm-multiple-the-algorithm-material-reconstructing-creative-practice. The Contours of Algorithmic Life, UC Davis, 2015.

Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality. How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press, 2018.

Gill, Rosalind, and Akane Kanay. “Mediating Neoliberal Capitalism: Affect, Subjectivity and Inequality.” Journal of Communication, vol. 68, no. 2, Apr 2018, pp. 318–26, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy002.

Goriunova, Olga. “The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons.” Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 36, no. 6, 2019, pp. 125–45, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419840409.

---. “Uploading Our Libraries: The Subjects of Art and Knowledge Commons.” Aesthetics of the Commons, edited by Felix Stalder et al., Diaphanes, 2021, pp. 41–61.

Hall, Stuart. “The Toad in the Garden: Thatcherism among the Theorists.” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, Macmillan Education, 1988, pp. 35–57.

Hofmüller, Reni, et al. Are You Being Served? (Notebooks). Constant, 2014, https://areyoubeingserved.constantvzw.org/AreYouBeingServed.pdf.

Iliadis, Andrew, and Federica Russo. “Critical Data Studies: An Introduction.” Big Data & Society, no. 1–7, Oct 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238.

Iqbal, Mansoor. “Twitter Revenue and Usage Statistics (2023).” Business of Apps, 2 May 2023, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/.

Karizat, Nadia, et al. “Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. CSCW2, 2021, p. 1.

Lialina, Olia. Turing Complete User: Resisting Alienation in Human-Computer-Interaction. Heidelberg University Publishing, 2021.

List of Feminist Servers. History of Anarchaserver and Feminists Servers visit this section. https://alexandria.anarchaserver.org/index.php/History_of_Anarchaserver_and_Feminists_Servers_visit_this_section#List_of_Feminist_servers. Accessed 19 June 2023.

Mansoux, Aymeric, and Roel Roscam Abbing. “Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS.” The Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture, edited by Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs, Institute of Network Cultures / transmediale e.V., 2020, pp. 125–40.

McNeil, Joanne. Lurking. How a Person Became a User. MCD, 2020.

Monroe, Dwayn. “Seeding the Cloud.” Logic, no. 16, 27 Mar 2022, pp. 91–102.

Niederberger, Shusha. “Feminist Server—Visibility and Functionality: Digital Infrastructure as a Common Project.” Springerin | Hefte Für Gegenwartskunst, no. 4, Aug 2019, pp. 8–9.

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown, 2016.

Rader, Emilee, and Rebecca Gray. “Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed.” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr 2015, pp. 173–82, https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174.

Rouvroy, Antoinette. “The End(s) of Critique: Data-Behaviourism vs. Due-Process.” Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn: The Philosophy of Law Meets the Philosophy of Technology, edited by Katja De Vries and Mireille Hildebrandt, Routledge, 2013, pp. 143–65.

Seaver, Nick. “Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems.” Big Data & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, Nov 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104.

Siles, Ignacio, et al. “The Mutual Domestication of Users and Algorithmic Recommendations on Netflix.” Communication, Culture & Critique, vol. 12, no. 4, Dec 2019, pp. 499–518, https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz025.

Silverman, David, and Paul Atkinson. “Kundera’s Immortality: The Interview Society and the Invention of the Self.” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 3, no. 3, Sep 1997, pp. 304–25.

Snelting, Femke, and spideralex. Forms of Ongoingness. Interview by Cornelia Sollfrank, Video, transcript, 16 Sept. 2018, http://creatingcommons.zhdk.ch/forms-of-ongoingness/.

spideralex. “CREATING NEW WORLDS with Cyberfeminist Ideas and Practices.” Beautiful Warriors: Technofeminist Praxis in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Cornelia Sollfrank, Minor Compositions, 2020, pp. 35–56.

Srnicek, Nick. Platform Capitalism. Polity Press, 2016.

Retrieved from "http://cc.vvvvvvaria.org/wiki/index.php?title=Toward_a_Minor_Tech:Niederberger5000&oldid=3442"