Bonjour et bienvenue dans le 7ème élément de la planète Atlantique en Australie. Au lieu de se dérouler dans le laboratoire de l'Ontario, comme d'habitude, nous sommes ici en coopération avec Amway pour leur troisième édition, ce qui est vraiment génial. J'aime beaucoup que nous ayons cette coopération qui rencontre des artistes marocains et marocains. Thank you for having us and also thank you for having us in Athens for this wonderful venue. Today we can also be seen on the live stream of SpectreFile and our radio magician, Le magicien Herbert Manola fait toujours de très bonnes éditions de radio. Vous trouverez ça plus tard dans l'enquête de la culture de la démonstration. Elle est aussi démonstrée par Rabbi Hul et Yins, le Rabbi Tepit en Salzburg et Rabbi Uros en Léman. Il y aura l'occasion de poser des questions après la conférence. Je vous invite à utiliser les microphones, s'il vous plaît, pour que nos auditeurs et écouteurs puissent the events conversations. And at this point I would also like to remind you that there are cameras. If you don't want to be under recording, please stay in the back of the room. There you should be safe. et que vous deviez être prêts. Quand les gens étaient encore à l'école, on utilisait beaucoup le mot « passeport » mais aujourd'hui, on utilise « expert ». Peut-être que vous êtes en Mastrobras? Oui, très bien! Peut-être que vous êtes à Lille? Yes, yes, very close. Or maybe Instagram. Anyway, we are delighted to see you using the hashtag next part. Now for the evening's program. Today we are privileged to hear three presentations, ending confidential protocols, and algorithmic solubility, and about social platforms. So very interesting three presentations. After the talk, there is also the possibility to give a short lightning talk. So I already know of a lightning talk by Hux. If you want to present something by yourselves, if you have an event, announcement or something, please let me know and I'll add you to the list. that no end are agreed to the list. After the talks and announcements, the conference will continue at the office. We hope that you have time to enjoy yourself and have a dream together and move on to the more cozy part of the evening. So, enough for the program. Now we come to the first talk. Asian Consensual, I'll put the cards. Tim is already here with me. He's an artist who lives in New York, and a talented teacher for a person, a school of design. C'est un artiste qui vit à New York et qui a rencontré des enseignants de la scolarité de design, qui ont étudié les langues et les relations de couleur et aussi les interactions sociales et les difficultés. So today, we're going to give us insights into the development of artistic practices for consensus-based collaboration. I'm very curious about it. Thank you. Thank you so much for that kind introduction, Luma. And hi, everybody. It's an honor and a pleasure to be here with everyone. I'm excited to share this project with you together tonight. It's really started, this project started during the start of the pandemic. And it was really, to me, a moment. You know, I saw something in the eyeways of my fellow technologists. I also am a community organizer. And it was really a moment to kind of pause and touch on the kind of course that people, mostly in the United States, have been relying on to organize communities. And what does it mean to, you know, organize events or initiatives that are supposed to be anti-capitalist and feminist? Why are we necessarily necessarily talking about projects that are still operating at a capitalist high-cost speed? And so, together was a project that, going out of their first election, I would say that the approach of TogetherMade is very much in the realm of critical making, using making as a way to explore a deeper, more thoughtful relationship with what other kinds of world can we have of how we can share the data. And so, yeah, as you can see, there is a website that peer researchers have come to explore, Together in Med by OID. Together in Med is an open source software that invites groups of 10 or less people at the same time to boot community archives through practices of consent. So very much this model was very much affaud Lee and Dan Caliber, also a SEC byproduct. I would encourage you to check it out. Together, we'll use this critical making as a measure to claim our rights, to imagine what collective decision-making can look like. So, very much, you know, it has been very inspiring and helpful to be listening to different kind of talks that have been happening the last few days. And it's just given a sense of where the conversation is at right here in this city. But, so, you know, moving on back, moving on from the conversation that I've already had, this project very much is attempting to go into the ultimate way of hypno-filtrationalism. It's very, very important to say that because oftentimes, I feel like a presentation that's been thrown around software has this, like, under-conviced implication that this is going to stop everything, or this is going to design some kind of other society. And today, the night is actually very much not about that and so they decouple that. And so I would more explicitly say that Today the Night actually, as a project, wants to support small groups of people with existing mission to practice consent in their day-to-day communication already. And so instead of replacing intention of the community, it's trying to augment, it's trying to enhance already existing intention to consider concern as part of the practice. And this is a very small group of people who have beauty needs. It's always, always fun to make sure that their names and their likeness are in the space somehow, even though I'm the only person here presenting this project. I also want to be clear about that some of you know how this project was created, where the resources come from. It comes from an artist grant by this organization called I-BEAM, M-I-C. The total time of developing the project was three months. So very much, you know, I think there is a kind of like quality and overall thought around what it means to develop a project in this way, the world is operating this way. And it's so, so counter how the development work in the United States. One of the first questions that we were asking, I was so, so pumped for how the Diploma work in the United States. One of the first questions that we were asking at the start of the project this spring, we were looking at some people who might know this website, I used to call darkpattern.org, now called Defected by Design, listing a whole group, a whole catalog of different ways, different kinds of bad patterns in like UI, UX, industry, including patterns such as fake agency, fake scarcity, hidden costs, visual interference. The government is trying to imagine what interface can look like. If there is a way to create a whole design practice based on perception, what does it mean to create a design practice that is in concept? Is that even possible? Can we possibly even try and imagine and explore that? So Together Note is, in many ways, really trying to go beyond the current practice and the current framework of cybersecurity to look at software through a more holistic framework of concept. And much of this evolved by somebody who went through a lot of cyber security meetings before creating this project, also realizing this kind of institutional gap between people who have the knowledge and have access to understand the typical know-how from people who are at the same time most vulnerable to data privacy targeting. And so it's this realization of, you know, maybe we need to think broader, and cybersecurity is one of the, the kind of sub-category of this broader thinking and broader re-imagination of conceptual design. So, to get back to the inspiration, the conceptual tagline, I think one of the things, if one were to look at Conflint and the dictionary definition, which is generally you're going to see something along the lines of to agree for something to happen, to agree for something to be done to you. This conceptual tag design really kind of anchored and began from some sort of relation of bodies. And I actually proposed this idea of the data body, which is, you know, has a very different kind of characteristic and, you know, completely different, like, you know, system of sensory mechanism compared to a physical body. However, it also, it falls under a certain kind of threat when bio-data, when pieces of a person's information flows into the internet. So it basically uses a Westwood-Cargath-Rice model. The keywords are fully given, reversible,oned, enthusiastic, and specific, which is actually a way of thinking about consent related to a body created by Kim Paterenburg, an organization in the US that is really thinking about intimacy and sexual consent. So does he basically start a to consider what does that mean? Like, what does it mean to practice FRIES within a kind of data privacy within a software context? And so, so fully given is this idea of no poison and manipulation. Reversible is this idea that even if you agree to a thing, even if you agree to a term, you should be able to reverse your agreement at any given time. So this reversibility of a decision being made, one should be punished for a decision not to have made on time if your individuality is changing your mind, and that is what free consent looked like. In terms of this idea, I think that is maybe a little more legible and understandable, especially for those of us who have gone through a medical system, because I like in fact been through a counseling team out, where I worked in medical system, and enthusiastic and specific. Counseling to one thing doesn't mean consenting to the other. And oftentimes, when we learn that the state's in favor of the dark carbon trap, one often gets into a loop of consenting to multiple things without real, full information of whether they said they're consenting to. And so, thinking about, you know, kind of like going back to a simpler point, I think about Frize and how one can apply Frize onto this, you know, very complicated multi-layered problem that we have with a user and the interface that goes through servers and the internet. They're all, you know,. There are a lot of things to consider and I think oftentimes I think they're extremely overwhelming to have to think about how to spend in multiple episodes in multiple ways through all these different layers. But I think that one of the ways, one of the approach the project has created is to kind of slice the layers out in these three ways. So think about consent from a peer-to-peer level. This actually turns out to be, I believe, one of the most complicated ones to mitigate, one of the most impossible ones to create. Versus a peer-to-sever consent concerns and that's something I think most people, you know, that's kind of like what a lot of people who care about data privacy care about. That's what a lot of people talk about. That's what their broadcasts and their news, the dilation of peer-to-server concerns. And there's also, of course, this idea of server-to-server conference. So think about this, these devices have been our way of approaching this issue. And also, the project is obviously in alignment with this idea of small technology that was also created with a new movement that follow a set of ethos that's very much reliant on this idea of peer-to-peer, fair-like, non-commercial. And I'm really thinking about how can we reduce this fear? Like, really imagine, we support, we feel interested, we support, we're not in a certain way, but when you're scared that you're not, I'm going to think about what it means to give things to other people while including people. And that, in a way, does require a rethinking or reimagining of skill. So here, I'm going to give just a little bit of top work here. When you enter to get in it, you are confronted with what we call the privacy scenario. This is one of these efforts of trying to figure out how do we talk about these things very easily, at very technical network protocols, but with people who may or may not be interested in learning about it, or may or may not have a major intimative about a topic. So the way we think about it is that, okay, we're going to use public space. We're going to use public space which in itself has also encourage various complexities of different genes of a society, different people, depending on the gender, their race, their caste, what kind of a public space, are going to have different kinds of experiences in that space. How can we use a specific discussion of a public space to kind of get more or create a metaphor for what the network protocol is actually doing. So in this case, we actually used WebRTC protocol to create the child mode of communication in the software, but at the same time, we began this discussion by kind of inviting some people coming and using a metaphor of talking to a friend at a picnic lunch. And all of this is trying to say that, hey, by default it's pretty quiet, you know, but unless someone wants to sit behind you and listen in, if someone wants to, you know, try to get in in a certain way, but it's not possible. So how can we describe our research team without going into all the technical detail? This is one of the solutions we have. This is the default way to get people to communicate. By default, we talk about the WebRT scenario, which means that essentially, initially you exchange a template, exchange IP address, and then you start sending messages from both of the browser without ever going further. And so this method, which of course is something that we started for most, like kind of like both the money from our pensions, message, which is something that we've done before, like document is not a change in truth. It's something you make basic measure of communication of general. The moment everybody traces your browser, this communication is not stored anywhere anymore. In order to save a message, you have to go through a process called content archives, which is the, you have to go to a process called person-to-archive, which is looking for the software where everybody in the space has to be, has to unilaterally agree to save a message. So, in a way, we're really playing with, like, what is it like to do, to have you really throw down the process of something that happens in the blink of an eye in the space where software and workspaces are flat or distorted, where messages are outscored that happens in the blink of an eye in space where software and workspaces like Slack or Discord where messages are escored without ever leaving a space for consideration or the awareness of how messages are escored. So we're kind of like really like playing with rhythm of a software and throwing things down to see what happens. This is a message that gets forward, which creates a mobile representation of all the users in the space, all the people in the space. And there's also a kind of like, once messages are posted, it does get connected to a server of your choice. Obviously, this requires some basic understanding of how to set up a server, and that is something that we'll try to continue to work on to develop tutorials to make them more accessible. But essentially once this happens, once and once this gets archived, it gets sent to a server that, you know, then the concept of interaction becomes available. For this research, I think I also became really interested in learning more about peer-to-peer consent. This is a book that I was referencing quite a bit When I was working on this project, I had a little bit, yeah, I think, I see some of the smirks on people's faces with this title, Freedom is Our Own Life Meaning. And it's, yeah, it's a really informative kind of like, yeah, like field research and a kind of good study of like, their democracy in the United States. How different groups practice it, where the person comes from, what are the kind of documents they follow. That happens in those meetings. And of course, I'm happy to talk more about that if you have any other curious, come talk to me about it after equity talk. But within the software, there is also a mode of communication where you actually are able to provide nonverbal feedback to someone's message or a topic of discussion. So instead of considering what the power of nonverbal feedback, in this case, as I write in the book, there are ways to kind of integrate some of these ideas of agree, hesitate, and disagree, black, into a self-aware context. And yeah, and so I think this work, it's basically a version of terms of agreements of Agreement, written by my man, which is one of the people on the team. It's really, you know, like, I think this is another layout consideration, like really thinking about how do we, like, really imagine terms of agreement, right? Like, instead of following a certain kind of legal framework, you know, there are many studies out there showing how nobody reads, because, I mean, a majority of people are going to read terms of agreement because this is not a written point. This is not a reason for our ICC in the sense of it's written by, I mean, with Big Tech, it's can buy a team of lawyers, to protect themselves. And so there is already this kind of normalization for a very long time of kind of ignoring the risk in order to participate. And so we're also trying to push that and see how far we can go to be able to communicate the way the software works while trying to alter the language to make it a lot more accessible and down to earth. And yeah, and so I think, lastly, I just want to talk about how, this is really something that I think I have personally benefited greatly from open source software communities specifically. I don't think of software just as things running on a computer, but really also, in addition to that, a community. I think if software doesn't really exist, if nobody uses it, if software doesn't really exist, if there's no community around it, to contribute to it and help improve it. And so for me, building a community is as important as building a software from the start because you want people to care about consent, to be in the room, to help contribute, and even make this other better. And so the way we launched the software was through running a series of workshops. And we continue to do those workshops. And very specifically, we actually strategically created workshops that relate to different topics of consent. Right. So inviting different experts in different fields, oral history, health, sex intimacy, to talk about what consent means within their sphere of understanding and references, we get to actually invite people. Yeah, so here are just like some topics that was explored within those workshops. I think that creating the software has, just like the software in action, I think that creating the software has multiple effects on me and I've learned a great deal. It really kind of reinforced for me this idea of learning through critical making because I get into the nuance and learn about things that otherwise wouldn't really even think about without touching the software and touching, trying out these different network protocols. So for instance, one takeaway I had was that software has a speed and a rhythm. Every single software has actually a rhythm, and this rhythm actually can really mitigate and transform the way we communicate, the allowance for awareness to occur during those communication. In this case, I have found that addition of movement within this interface actually slow down communication speed, you know, kind of like naturally and in turn impact awareness in a very different way compared to a communication software like Discord, which I would consider as like a very fast paced software. So a lot of it become like thinking about the rhythm, thinking about how things are slowed down without feeling like things are being delayed, right? So it's kind of like playing with that line of thinking about software design. And also I think another impact this had was realizing that, oh, there are a lot of complaints or a lot of ideas or feedback I got during the development of the software was a lot of people who, often women, often marginalized communities complaining about how someone in the room in a meeting would just speak too much or take up too much space, right? And so there's so many different ways to deal with that, you know, as, like, someone who designs software. But I think that, you know, I'm very interested in, like, how to, like, kind of encourage reflection rather than kind of, like, you know, coding rules that's going to block someone or like make someone do certain things. So in this case, you know, I was also very interested in ways that these messages, which is like represented by the user's avatar color, also like becomes a kind of visualization of like a power, a power dynamic in the room, right? Like who has spoken more become like very obvious over time. And so that's something that became very interesting for me. In this, yeah, so for the festival and also for the workshop, I'm running a remixing workshop, which basically includes helping people to set up their own node and also remixing the software. So that's something I'm very excited about. The software itself, while there are certain parts of that infrastructure that's a lot more difficult to remix, when it comes to interface design and when it comes to renaming things and then turning this into something that belongs to a more specific community. That's quite easy to do. So that is something that's happening on Saturday, and I would be excited to see you there. All right. Thanks all. Thank you very much for the talk, for your presentation, and I think it will be a really interesting workshop on Saturday at DEFLOL. Do you have questions? Hey, hey. Thanks for the talk. I have a very precise question. In one of your first slides, you had this, you had enthusiastic as a factor, but you left out the explanation for it, and the explanation written down under was... Yeah, can you explain a little bit more on that one? That would be nice. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. Let me find it. Okay, yeah, so enthusiastic, I would say, is one that is, I think that's like probably the most difficult one when it comes to like applying to like software design. Because I think that as a culture, like at least in the United States, I feel like we are quite cynical when it comes to to participation in software of any kind, especially after this kind of pandemic period where a lot of students are kind of like forced to participate in Zoom University and all of that. I think that enthusiastic, like within a kind of like sexual intimacy consent still is very valid. At the same time, when it comes to software, I think that it's more something to aspire to. Like, what does it, like, it becomes a question, like, what does it mean, like, to, like, you know, get a kind of enthusiastic consent in the sense of, like, a big yes with, like, all caps, right? It's like, what does that look like within a software context is that even doable is that asking too much is that is that kind of like you know overly like overly optimistic so I think I think for me um the the part of enthusiastic has more to do with you know ensuring that like we are still asking these questions of how to be welcoming and how to lower the barrier of entry and how to help aspire enthusiasm, aspire to a more friendly, welcoming, enthusiastic space without kind of, while being very cautiously optimistic, right, and not so much thinking that, not so much, like, thinking that, not so much like buying into a kind of neoliberal language of, like, you know, yes, you're part of this community. You know, I think that's a very, yeah, it doesn't feel like software can do exactly that, like, compared to, like, the kind of enthusiasm that the FRIES model was originally referring to. Hi. Thanks a lot for the talk. I have a question. I'm interested in when you said that every software has a certain rhythm or maybe a certain time. And I was wondering if you could like elaborate a bit more on like the experiences you had with this and maybe also like especially with like building consent and communities yeah thanks yeah yeah absolutely so um I think that I think like since I was already starting to talk about Discord, I can maybe use that as a, you know, elaborate that a little more. I think that Discord as a communication software is, yeah, it's designed to like, it's designed to encourage a very fast-paced communication to the point where there were features being developed to make sure that a person cannot post too much, like within a set amount of time a moderator is able to do that, right? And so I think for me, you know, there was like two possible directions we could have gone with with this software design. One is to create rules of refusal, right? Create rules of blockage and create rules of refusal to ensure that bad behavior, bad action cannot be in the space. Right, that was definitely one of the kind of like potential and something code is actually pretty good at doing you know, when it comes to like thinking about like how to like avoid or block behaviors out. Another way to think about it was that, well like is there something about, like is there something within software design that can be done that can actually counter this tendency to be impulsive? Is there a way to encourage the opposite modes of behavior? And so the reason also why this software only allowed 10 people to use simultaneously was also the consideration of that, right? Because there are research around like, yeah, what visibility at a larger scale can do to a person's way of communication. And so I think for me, yeah, it's thinking about, thinking about slowing things down was like a very crucial part of working with the software and it was really an experiment without really knowing, you know, what would happen of like, you know, just a curiosity of what happens if communication was slowed down. What if like, you know, what if we really kind of link into the kind of benefits of asynchronicity, you know, of online communication and see like how you can build a space using those ideas and everything, all the design around it is kind of like shaped to encourage a slower way of communicating. Also, I think, you know, I think not to kind of speculate too much because of course it's all open source software and people are going to use it how they want that I think I think that you know Underlying these ideas and these design is also the question of how does restorative justice happen? You know in an online space and it's just as possible when you have a hundred people Following you or a hundred people talking to each other at all times, right? Or does it look very different when it exceeds a certain scale and certain encampment size? Just as a follow-up also to this question, I wonder, because you're also shipped around this enthusiastic topic, is it more a communication or educational tool for you? Because it's also like, because at the end you also go for making the people understand what is left in certain communication tools left out. So I think, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really good question. I think that it's, you know, I think that's a really good question. I think my hope is for it to be a little bit of both. But I think that, for me, it's also being very, I think the only part of it that I really want to focus on when it comes to education has more to do with thinking about consent in a kind of online, in a kind of like data communication space rather than going beyond that, knowing how just how complicated consent can be depending on cultural differences, regional differences, context differences. So I think for me it's a kind of like, yeah, kind of like walking that line and like, you know, on one hand, crafting the software so that it's like explicitly inviting people who care about this topic in. And on the other hand, it's also, you know, kind of like scooping the other part up with a more kind of educational aspect by feeling in like the more technical side of things, which turns out to be a lot easier to talk about and teach compared to trying to like make a kind of like grand statement around how consent works overall. I just want to quickly regarding restorative justice. So did you actually test with some kind of case studies how that might work as in a restorative justice circle or, you know, getting victims and perpetrators together in such an environment seems to be rather challenging. Did you look into that? No, I actually, I haven't been able to test it with restorative justice groups. And I actually, I am in communication with restorative justice groups, but I think that it's, you know, hmm. I think that we can, like at this point, we can only simulate the situation instead of like using it in like, you know, real life, actual, like, at this point, we can only simulate the situation instead of, like, using it in, like, you know, real life, actual, like, it can be very tender kind of situation. So I'm not, I don't feel like the software is, like, quite there yet to be tested in that way. But I have tested it with, like, yeah, very interesting experience, actually, testing it with, like, medical professionals who actually testing with like medical professionals who actually somehow like really, yeah, really like relate, like that was like a group of people that relate to the software the most which was like not what I would have expected because I didn't know anything, I didn't know anything about like medical professional communications and wasn't really thinking about that at all during the process. Okay. If there are no other questions, it's my time to say we have to go to the next talk. I'm sorry. It's really, really interesting. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thanks, everybody.