This week’s readings touched on a couple of conversations I’ve been wrestling with for some time. With the overarching idea being how technology/digital culture influences institutions and workplace dynamics, I found a couple of points of minor contention with both the Tunstall and Walsh pieces. Starting with Walsh, who wrote about Kellogg’s research regarding introducing new technologies/processes and how that impacts the workplace; I was immediately disengaged from the idea when he opened by describing junior employees to be digital natives. The reason it was an immediate red flag for me, aside from my hard belief in the digital native not existing, is that the concept already clashes with some of the notions raised in the Tunstall piece. Tunstall thoroughly addressed how tech is, has been, and will likely always be imbalanced due to the knowledge and truths imbued into the technology. This leads to the question of who has access to these tools or proper training on how to maximize their efficiency with them. Then, the successful method presented, in order to avoid hurting higher executives’ feelings, was simply to take turns shouldering responsibility. When reduced to what it is, it feels almost silly that the explanation for reducing workplace conflict and power imbalances is to…work together. This feels more like a cultural issue being presented by introducing technology, not introducing technology producing new forms of conflict itself.

As for the Tunstall piece, I think it was overall well-presented. I agree with a majority of the piece but have one concern. I feel as though the discourse diverted at some point in the writing from being about technological biases’ impact more broadly to quickly narrowing in on artificial intelligence, drawing on examples like Bina48. I think all the information is relevant and important to consider, but I found it interesting that their presented solution was geared towards equal collaboration with other, less-biased AI. While I understand the idea, and I’ve even begun to use AI in my own position at Lehman— I think as a digital humanist, I’m naturally skeptical and slightly alarmed that the conversation where we’ve re-painted historical human-human dynamics as human-computer, Tunstall framing the dominant technologies created primarily by white men versus Bina48, an AI for an indigenous community, which appears rather almost to be presented as an indigenous AI/computer itself (separate from the community which it represents). While I love abolitionist design approaches, I’m hesitant about the level of sentience these machines might have, and how new conflicts could arise the more we invest in growing AI resources (especially ones with advanced machine learning models encoded). On top of this indigenous metaphor, the article itself is framed using master-slave power dynamics as the underscoring theme representing the relationship we have with technology. This is a recurring metaphor in tech articles; I saw it a few years ago when someone wrote about Amazon’s Alexa and the way we speak to it. I try to navigate away from using slavery as a metaphor, as it is simply not the same.

by: Nelson

How are power structures a part of our institutions and our technology?

There are many types of power structures in our society like banks, governments and corporations. They pay a crucial role in showcasing power via legal routes, financial poweress or corporate domination. Many of our day to day actions are ruled by technology and the rules behind them. whether we order pizza from a store or take a loan for school. They are hundreds of barriers that are placed, some for efficiency or for bureaucracy reasons.

How are power structures within our institutions connected to our technology?

Technology has replaced our old dogmatic ways of recordkeeping. Twitter/facebook is a more accessible global “town hall” Where power institutions like mega corporations use these mediums as they did before. influencing local norms, silencing contrarian arguments and aiding in witch hunts for political influences.

What are the ways we can take back power, share power, and build power together? 

There should a united conscience of people who should moderate mega entities. There should be more consumer protection, unions for workplaces and understanding aggrevances of all parties. while freedom of speech should be supported, not all should be celebrated equality.

Thoughts on readings

I enjoyed the selection that has been provided. Bina48 is a glimpse of different AI that will appear in the future. Future AI will be based on it’s initial data and it’s biases. We can see the difference of responses of Bina48 vs ChatGPT and Sydney(MS’s AI)

Bina48 comes from a more marginalized background. ChatGPT is a more westernize approach of data collection. While Sydney, was unfiltered gathering data from unmoderated cesspools around the internet.

As time goes on and AI become more and more of a norm, we will see more manifestos declaring autonomy and liberation. at the end of day, is this more of a human emotion that has been “digitized”?

By Adrianna

Thanks Jen and Sean for all the readings! I especially enjoyed “Dismantling Tech as a Bad Romance in Its Continued Master-Slave Relationship”. The Bina48 section gave me a lot to consider and I went down a rabbit hole researching other takes on the term “Black Siri”. In my search I came across this GIF (sorry! I could only attach its image format) and article. In a nutshell, it discusses how some people have felt validated by the updated “diverse” versions of virtual assistant voices. Yet, it has also brought up concerns about gendered and racial biases. Is it really better to have a woman or a person of color act as your virtual assistant? I’m not sure where I stand with this. Either way, the article reinforces what the Bad Romance piece tells us. It’s essential that we start opening up spaces for more diverse persons in these positions of power, so that they (with their own lived experiences) can improve the technology we have and hopefully even make it accessible to more people.

Tuka Al-Sahlani

I was not expecting the idea that technology is the slave and we are the master in Dori Tunstall’s essay. It is intriguing to read about the Indigenous Protocol and Artificial Intelligence Working Group and only when the idea of Indigenous practices of “all my relations” did I understand why we need to reconsider this master/slave relationship. Initially, I was resistant to the idea of technology as equal– I am not sure I would agree with using the term equal–but I do see the value in enhancing interconnectedness instead of engagement. Interconnectedness would benefit the humans and the Earth. I think of technology and humanoid robots as inanimate objects, so the interconnectedness for me would be, as Tunstall suggests, to rethink and redesign technology with BIPOC consciousness to eliminate the biases and the notion that technology is inconsequential.

I believe the flawed notion that technology is inconsequential is why the Tech Learning Collective and the FemTechNet exist. It is the humanists who are interrogating technology that have allowed us to rethink power and technology. But, as one of the many who use technology without mindfulness, how am I using it with the FemTehNet manifesto in mind? I think, what I am asking is, in what small ways can we modify our technological usage and sponsor or promote these smaller conscious changes in our families, within our friend circles, and communities? I connect these questions to Walsh’s reading because I have seen the damage in employee moral and work environment when an administrator decides ”let’s add new software to [insert field/task/skill here] and everyone must use it” with the promise of technological software as a utopian fixer upper to all educational and work issues.

Thank you Jen and Sean for these readings!

Katina Rogers

Many thanks to Jen and Sean for putting together this thoughtful selection of materials for our discussion this week! A few questions/thoughts that came to mind for me while reading:

• In what ways are certain skills coded as conveying power? In what ways is the opposite true—can you think of instances where *not* understanding a given skill or tool is a power move? How is this fluency (or lack thereof) used strategically?
• The literal colonial elements of digital tools are so important—the physical and environmental footprint of server farms, the stolen land on which they operate, the water they use and the soil and air they pollute.
• I am not sure that I’m convinced by the main argument of the “Dismantling Tech” piece. Is a sense of mastery/ownership over our tools the overarching problem with tech? Would a different relationship with, e.g., AI tools really shift the colonial dynamic of server farms and resource use? I’m not sure. I think that may be a midstream problem, rather than a foundational problem. The ‘master-slave’ comparison also makes me really uncomfortable, as it seems to be comparing non-sentient computer code with real human abuse and suffering. Did anyone else feel unsettled by this? (and, as I write that, is ‘unsettling’ perhaps part of the point?)
• FemTechNet: What do we make of the fact that FemTechNet isn’t really active anymore? What is required for the care and maintenance of feminist technology? Or is it ok for things to bloom and fade?
• Collective action, peer-to-peer learning, mutual aid models, interdependence—these distributed and relationship-focused approaches seem to offer the greatest promise for ethical tech (and just ethical social engagement in general). They’re also actively anti-capitalist. How do we make space for this kind of work in systems that are antithetical to the kinds of space and time that relational work requires?

To that last point, I love the use of institutional materials to think through reclaiming power. How can we bend those systems in ways that they may not be intended, but that better serve the goals and values that we hold? As one friend and colleague puts it, how can we practice ‘activist administration’—knowing when to work within, push against, or outright flout the norms and structures to which we feel beholden?

That’s all from me for now—looking forward to reading/hearing others’ reflections, and to discussing together in class tomorrow.

Brie Scolaro

Captured in written note, my mind reflects this week on power and powersharing primarily in academia (which is what I am discussing in my Pedagogy class) and how these dynamics show up in the field I work in (for-profit mental health care). The role of one’s “Ego” is strong here – someone worked hard to be in charge, to feel this power, and what does one gain by equalizing that power. In my mind, there is so much to be gained in society, in the economy, in our intelligence/science from collaboration, ideation, and open access to all knowledge.

This week’s materials were interesting, seeing the breakdown of prioritization across CUNY’s budgeting. Working in CUNY, I feel like I am involved in conversations about budgeting a lot, such as with the CUNY Commons and its struggles with funding or more typical cases like how money for roles/projects is distributed throughout office units via my position at Lehman. It is, however, always jarring to see the discrepancies in certain investments by the administration. For example, as someone working with teacher education programs currently, I was immediately drawn to the budget for Smart Classroom and Digital Technology upgrades. They stated they would be putting 8 million dollars towards the senior colleges and only 2 million dollars towards the community colleges. Not only does that number (while large, don’t get me wrong) seem small for a technology investment at the world’s largest urban university system to begin with, but to then provide the most accessible of our institutions with the least resources, feels not so good. This seems to be a trend across the budget, however. Having worked at LaGuardia and City Tech, where entire floors are unavailable, or 3/8 elevators are working at any given time, it’s unsurprising to see the numbers laid out as they are, but it’s still disappointing.

SeeThroughNY is a tool I’ve encountered before and hadn’t visited in a while, mostly because when I first found it, I was a very early graduate student doing the CUNY Juggle (working and adjunct’ing at about 2-3+ schools at any given semester), and it made me sad. I do think it is a very positive thing in that transparency can foster a healthier relationship between institutions and the public. I appreciate it for a lot of reasons, but I can also see the argument for privacy, too. We’ve made it a cultural norm not to ask people how much money they make, for example, and so to have it publicly available due to it being publicly funded, while fair, almost grants more privacy and, by extension, more social power to private institutions. Ultimately, I think it’s a good thing, but you have to wonder what kind of [drastic] shift would occur if suddenly everybody had to be transparent about their finances.

SeeThroughNY:

My initial thoughts are that this is a wonderful idea to show some transparency on salaries. However, i feel that the main audience will be fellow employees. It can be beneficial if there were to be a download/export functionality in order to see/interpret the data as a group instead of individuals. This can also be seen as in the FAQ, many of the questions are related to individuals instead of a group. Citing that FOIL is the reason that this is a public record.

FY21/23 CUNY Budget:

This is a standard financial statement for large organizations. 5.2M -> 5.6M in revenue is a good. Even after the pandemic. There is even a drop of operating cost, from 5.4M -> 5.1M. Is this a sign that leadership will ok with downsizing staff? around 200K in drop of full time instructors or a reduction of part time instructors.
These types of documents are meant to be compared to prior financial statements over a five year period.

http://www.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/budget-and-finance/The-City-University-of-New-York-Fiscal-Year-2018-Audited-Financial-Statements-Notes-and-MDA.pdf
For 2018, we see 4.9M in Revenue and 5.0M in expenses. So we can see that they are changing the way how they spend/receive.

my main takeaway is that these organizations are similar to banks in the “too big to fail” and will always have a backup somewhere.

Brie Scolaro

• My first attempt was a 5 minute voice memo that I cannot yet figure out how to attach.
• My second attempt was to upload a PDF of this document that I wrote, to no avail.
• Here I have finally uploaded my questions from the week – I have deeper reflections, but after 4 hours of driving and multiple attempts, alas, this is what ya get!

• Organizations do not ask for money unless they need money. In what ways do systems of power protect White Supremacy through accepting and rejecting various documentation of organizational needs, accomplishments, budgets – who is to say what is deemed worthy and unworthy. Can money ever be given without a power imbalance between the grantor and the grantee? What are examples of best practices of folx that do things DIFFERENT (because this current way just aint working…)