Director  has received the 2025 Gordon Cullingham Research and Publication Grant from  for “Walking Ottawa in Ink & Washes: A Quiet Cartography of a City Becoming Home.”

As Heritage Ottawa noted in its announcement, ““

Congratulations . We look forward to the completed book!

— ALiGN Media Lab

The post Merlyna Lim is awarded Heritage Ottawa’s Cullingham Grant appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

The post Beyond Zohran Mamdani: Social media amplifies the politics of feelings appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Indonesia has recently experienced one of its most intense protest waves in years. Starting on 25 August with anger over lawmakers’ lavish housing allowances, demonstrations escalated after a police armoured vehicle killed a rideshare driver on 28 August, spreading nationwide. While officials have portrayed protesters as rioters to justify a harsh crackdown, the unrest reflects broader frustrations over economic hardship, rising costs of living, and policies seen as benefiting elites.

The post #WhatIsHappeningInIndonesia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

We are excited to share that our digital activism toolkit is now available in , thanks to the thoughtful work of . A heartfelt shout-out to Aya and Marissa, who not only translated with precision, but also infused the work with creativity, care, and solidarity. We are also deeply grateful to Professor Amalinda Savirani, our trusted “rhizomatic network” broker, whose support and connection made this collaboration possible.

This toolkit is adapted from a larger handbook on digital activism that Merlyna Lim and Kathy Dobson are currently co-authoring at ALiGN. The handbook brings together twelve real-world case studies, each paired with practical tools for organizers and educators, and offers critical insights into how digital media both empowers and constrains today’s social movements. Though the handbook is still in progress, we feel it is urgent to share parts of it now—especially the toolkit—to support civic resistance in Indonesia and beyond.

At ALiGN Media Lab, we stand in solidarity with students and activists in Indonesia and all across the globe who continue to resist injustice and inequality with courage and creativity.

The post Digital Activism Toolkit – Indonesian version appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Merlyna Lim wrote 4S BackChannel about “post-publication listening” reflecting on the book tour in Southeast Asia, on her latest book Social Media and Politics in Southeast Asia.

She wrote:

“In science and technology studies (STS), we speak often about , , . And yet, so many of our scholarly life cycles begin and end in the Global North. We study “the field,” publish in Western journals, chase citations, present at European conferences, and then move on to the next project. But what does it mean to write about a place—and never return to listen?”

The post The field talks back appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Curious about social media and society in Indonesia? Don’t miss this special issue of INDONESIA (Cornell University Press), co-edited by David Kloos, Johan Lindquist, and Merlyna Lim. It features a co-authored piece on the making of social media publics by Kloos, Lim, and Linquist, Lim’s article on the politics of “curhat” (pouring your heart out) practices, and a rich lineup of essays by , , , , , ––, and Tapsell.

Lim’s “curhat” article:
The whole issue:

The post Special Issue on Social Media & Society in Indonesia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Lim, M. 2024. Social Media and Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  [] []

Video abstract:

Abstract:

The monograph endeavors to enrich and broaden Southeast Asian research by exploring the intricate interplay between social media and politics. Employing an interdisciplinary approach and grounded in extensive longitudinal research, the study uncovers nuanced political implications, highlighting the platform’s dual role in both fostering grassroots activism and enabling autocratic practices of algorithmic politics, notably in electoral politics. It underscores social media’s alignment with communicative capitalism, where algorithmic marketing culture overshadows public discourse, and perpetuates affective binary mobilization that benefits both progressive and regressive grassroots activism. It can facilitate oppositional forces but is susceptible to authoritarian capture. The rise of algorithmic politics also exacerbates polarization through algorithmic enclaves and escalates disinformation, furthering autocraticizing trends. Beyond Southeast Asia, the monograph provides analytical and conceptual frameworks to comprehend the mutual algorithmic/political dynamics amidst the contestation between progressive forces and the autocratic shaping of technological platforms.

The post New book: Social Media and Politics in Southeast Asia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

Introduction

by Merlyna Lim

Welcome to “The Digital in 2073: A Glimpse into the Future,” a captivating collection of essays that transports you to a future where the digital landscape has dramatically transformed. Curated from the outstanding work of students in the COMS4317 “Digital Media and Global Network Society” seminar, this special issue features five insightful essays that delve into either utopian or dystopian visions of our digital future.

As you navigate this collection, you’ll encounter explorations of how technology shapes humanity, touching on themes of isolation, ethics, AI rights, freedom, control, and privacy. Each author draws on historical insights while exercising their imaginative prowess, challenging the boundaries of our current understanding.

The collection opens with “From Revolution to Reconnection: Tracing the Journey to a Digital Utopia” by Erika Ehrenberg. In this sole utopian essay, Ehrenberg reflects on a harmonious future fifty years after her talk at �Ӱ�ԭ�� University. She paints a picture of a society that, despite early 21st-century anxieties, has flourished alongside digital innovations, prioritizing human values over profit-driven motives, thanks to the revolutionary wave of the ‘anti-technotrol’ movement in the 2050s.

Next, in “Futures Entwined: Technology’s Grip on Society from ARPANET to AI” Olivia L. Meikle charts the internet’s evolution from its humble beginnings in the 1970s to the foreboding reality of 2073. Her keen critique exposes the perilous shift from collective internet use to corporate monopolization, cautioning that without united resistance, we risk deepening the systemic biases and class disparities woven into our technological advancements.

Jake Andrews takes us deeper into the dark future with his gripping first-person narrative “Techno-Tyranny: When the Future Became Our Prison”. In this dystopian vision, humanity grapples with the aftermath of war and environmental collapse, as technology shifts from a beacon of hope to a source of enslavement. Andrews serves a stark reminder of the urgent need for vigilance in our relationship with technology.

Janelle Hamstra‘s essay, “The End of an Anti-Utopian Era: How Digital Technology is Leading to Dystopia,” explores a future where once-vibrant urban landscapes have withered away due to digital overdependence. Drawing from scholars like Manuel Castells and Douglas Rushkoff, she highlights how digital technology amplifies isolation and undermines democratic values, calling for proactive measures to prevent a bleak future.

Closing this compelling issue is Sofia Ali‘s reflective piece, “The Diary from 2073: Living in a Digital Nightmare”. Through her candid diary entry, Ali contrasts her once-optimistic views of technology with the grim realities of 2073, marked by ethical decay and societal inequities. She powerfully argues for the need to prioritize ethical considerations in technology design to avert the pitfalls we face.

Prepare to be challenged, inspired, and perhaps even unsettled as you embark on this exploration of our digital future, filled with possibilities and cautionary tales alike!

Merlyna Lim, The Editor

The post [Post/Millennials’ Voices] Issue 11 – The Digital in 2073: A Glimpse into the Future appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Erika Ehrenberg

This essay is a personal account written by a digital technology historian in 2073 that highlights key events in the global journey towards digital freedom, and defining elements of our current digital technology landscape.

Introduction

2073… Fifty years since I spoke at a conference at �Ӱ�ԭ�� University about the predicted future of digital technology and society, I find it fitting to reassess this topic. Our present state is a digital utopia, characterized by connectivity, productivity, and a humanity-first approach to technology use. If someone from 2023 were to get a glimpse into our world now, they would certainly question how we got here. The fears, anxieties, and challenges of digital technology that faced humanity in the early 21st century have been virtually eradicated. We live in harmony with digital technologies, enjoying their enhancement of our lives but drawing boundaries that maintain our sense of humanity. Our understanding of the role of digital technologies is fundamentally different than it was fifty years ago, having pivoted away from growth-based capitalist control. To properly assess our current state, I will first lay the groundwork by providing a history of major technological developments through the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Next, I will explain the conditions which led to the ‘anti-technotrol revolution’ of the 2050s, an event which dramatically altered the course of our history and repositioned us towards where we are today. Finally, I will explore the regulations of our current era that facilitate technology use, and offer some examples of the technologies and digital platforms which define our lives, society, and culture.

History of Technological Developments

I’ll pick up the thread of technology’s developments through history 100 years ago, with the Information Technology Revolution that began in the 1970s. Characterized by the convergence of several different technologies, this revolution fundamentally changed communication and information processing. Microelectronics, telecommunications, and computers were the hallmark inventions, while the advent of the microprocessor was a dramatic changemaker within the revolution (Castells, 2011). The internet was also invented during this time period, beginning as a military project that was quickly appropriated for academic and social use by scientists, an early indication of the breadth of its potential. While it was initially government-controlled, it was privatized in 1985, resulting in a space with no overseeing authority–a critical characteristic that prevails to this day (Castells, 2011).

Within the internet, a major development was the first transition from what was referred to as ‘Web 1.0’ to ‘Web 2.0’. In the first era, internet use was unidirectional information dissemination; publishing and reading. Software developments and other improvements in digital technology advanced the internet into a multilateral participatory space, with constant engagement and dialogue between users and publishers (O’Reilly, 2005). The emergence of media practices such as blogging and music downloading began at this time, illustrating how societal behaviours and norms responded to advancements in digital technology’s capabilities. A belief in the democratizing power of the internet also emerged in response to these advancements; everyday people were given the ability to speak in the digital sphere rather than exclusively listening, and this transformed everyday life into a subject for communication (Benkler, 2006). However, this was problematized by many scholars who identified the power of mass media corporations which cannot be replaced by smaller, independent media sources. This idea will be revisited in the last section when I explain the current media landscape, as fortunately the critics were proven wrong.

Perhaps the most important development during this time was the emergence of common’s based peer production, a cooperative productive system that harnesses collective intelligence to develop free, open-source projects (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006). This model of peer production led to the creation of many valuable internet projects, such as Wikipedia and the Open Directory Project, as well as scientific projects such as NASA’s Clickworkers. The success of common’s based peer production was a lesson on the willingness of humanity to resist commercialization and capitalism in the digital sphere, and was a glimmer of hope in the 2020s that a better future was possible through a collective, collaborate mindset rooted in humanity. The principles and behaviours that underline common’s based peer production are important to note, as they are notably present in our current media and technology landscape. They include “commitment to a particular approach to conceiving of one’s task,” “decentralization,” and “appeal to the common enterprise in which the participants are engaged,” (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006). We’ll come back to these traits in the exploration of our current media landscape.

Unfortunately, our society has not responded positively to all developments in digital technologies. The 2020s were marked by increasing advancements in artificial intelligence, and its integration into almost all aspects of life. AI ushered in the Web 3.0 era, a more networked and multilateral state. While it was initially positive—students revelled at the coursework-completing capabilities that ChatGPT offered—it was not long before AI began to overwhelm humanity and reshape socio-cultural norms and behaviours. AI became too smart, too predictive, and virtually inescapable. Corporations seized the opportunity to gain cognitive control over consumers through highly addictive apps, hyper-personalized predictive marketing, and unregulated data extraction. Globally, governments stepped back, taking a neoliberal deregulatory approach, enabling digital technology’s control to spread unchecked. Humanity took a dark turn, and an almost dystopian scene unfolded in the 2040s as we lost awareness for the separation between man and machine. I argue that this decline was necessary for such a dramatic rebuilding of the relationship between technology and society to occur, and produce the landscape that we have today. In the next section, I’ll explain the events which repositioned us from a path of subordination to digital technologies to a healthy balance where digital technologies enhance our lives.

The Anti-Technotrol Revolution

In a dark spiral towards a total interdependence on digital technologies, there was societal unrest and small resistance efforts. A prominent advocate for change was Douglass Rushkoff. As Rushkoff had identified, the problem with digital technology up to this point was that it became a tool to perpetuate growth-based corporate capitalism, and that a digital utopia could only be realized if the economics of digital technology were changed (2019). He had offered that the correct and sustainable approach to digital technology and humanity was to possess awareness for how we use digital technology, and how it uses us. Fuelled by this vision for the future, in 2050, a series of violent international protests against artificial intelligence, the government, and technology corporations occurred. The cause was known as ‘anti-technitrol’, and demonstrated the global desire for independence, freedom, and self-regulation with digital technologies. After three years of intensifying pressure and unrest, a major ideological shift occurred amongst those in power. In 2053, government representatives from UN countries were invited to meet in Geneva, Switzerland and signed a resolution to develop new global regulations and frameworks for the presence of digital technologies in people’s lives. Numerous changes were made to the digital technology landscape and a new framework was developed, and while it required some time to take root and be embraced by societies around the world, the end result was what Rushkoff had envisioned. This era is characterized by harmony between humanity and digital technology, where it enhances the human experience without overpowering it.

Comparatively to other historical revolutions such as the Information Technology Revolution, the anti-technotrol revolution was not characterized by “accelerated and unprecedented technological change,” brought on by “macro-inventions,” (Castells, 2011). Conversely, it was based upon an ideological shift in how we conceptualize the role of digital technology in our lives.

Today’s Technological Landscape

I have described our current state of affairs regarding digital technology and humanity as a utopia, which stems from scholar Eduardo Baretto’s assessment of our approach to collectivism as a utopian trait (2020). Baretto suggests that when we view collectivism as a positive condition, we are in a utopia. Our current digital technology landscape is characterized by collective action, responsibility, and production. In the early days of the revolution, Rushkoff had suggested that a solution to the problematic growth-based capitalism which controlled the digital technology sphere would be an increase in cooperatives and treating resources like commons (2019). Cooperative worker-owned businesses, which are founded upon the idea of a positive approach to collectivism, are the backbone of our current digital landscape. The idea of the democratizing power of the internet has been revitalized through these changes. There are several applications that have been developed on these principles in recent years which stand out; the Free App and WeWork.

The Free App is a digital marketplace where goods are exchanged without a financial transaction. It is an evolution from Facebook Marketplace, taking an anti-capitalist approach to the circulation of goods. Users can create a request for an item, and it can be fulfilled by any user. Users can also post an item to the board, and any user can indicate their desire for consideration for the item. The user who posts the item has the final say in who will receive the item–their justification can be for any reason. Users are limited to submitting 3 ‘considerations’ per 24 hour period. All exchanges of goods occur in designated safe public spaces. This space is self-regulated; users can downvote other users for negative behaviours such as indicating a consideration in a rude manner, not showing up to exchange the item, or lying about the item they are offering. Downvotes show on a user’s profile, and will decrease the likelihood that a user will be selected for an item in the future. This method of collective governance and shared responsibility keeps the space open and grounded in human values. It works against the capitalist system by sharing existing goods instead of treating them like a commodity for sale–a key feature of a utopia as described by Rushkoff (2019). Furthermore, there is a sense of responsibility and ownership because it is the users (who can also be thought of as the workers) who each ‘own’ a piece of this marketplace.

WeWork is another application which has been developed with the goal of collective production and increased human connection in the digital sphere. This cooperative project evolved from the common’s based peer production model of the early 21st century. While common’s based peer production (in its early days) often took the form of information gathering and software development, WeWork focuses exclusively on cross-continental voluntary intellectual work for humanitarian projects. It leverages the knowledge and skills of students, community leaders, and professionals from around the world to tackle small projects around the world. Communities can post a problem or goal, and receive ideas, proposals, models, and other resources to help with tangible results. It is free to join, and is also self governed; users who receive favourable reviews on their contributions are given access to more intensive projects with greater responsibility, and users who fail to receive a positive review after three contributions are temporarily suspended from their account. This app has seen the formation of remarkable networks and connections, and aided in globalizing the productive flow of knowledge. It removes barriers that the global south faces in receiving consultation assistance, whilst protecting the agency of communities in the global south to develop on their terms. It also protects our sense of humanity when using digital technologies by engaging us in activities that promote collective good.

In addition to developments in digital technologies which support a harmonized utopia, there have also been political developments which impacted the digital sphere. Governments recognized the necessity of balance between using technology and having human to human interaction–Rushkoff’s warning of the internet acting in the same way as a drug, with addictive algorithms, was heard and recognized. There are two major regulations that were created out of the Geneva resolution that reflect this. The first is that there is a mandatory, daily shutdown of all social media sites for one hour. This was first met with resistance from most users, but a widespread campaign called “Disconnect To Reconnect” focused on public education for the benefits of human connection, mental health, and awareness aided in its acceptance. This break protects our desire to maintain our humanity, while being realistic about the insurmountable role of social media in our lives. The second regulation was the banning of purposefully addictive algorithms (this came after intense legal hearings in Geneva). Technology corporations were restricted by tight parameters surrounding their software, and algorithms were modified accordingly. Now, the user experience is based upon the quality of interaction, instead of the quantity. This has had remarkable effects on mental health, productivity, and human connection.

It is understandable that a person from the year 2023 would have a difficult time believing that such dramatic progress was made, and that a utopian future would be possible. Unfortunately, humanity had to reach a breaking point in its relationship with technology, and a revolution had to occur, for us to realize that change was necessary for our survival. It is important to understand how the past shaped the present, in order to make predictions about what may come in the future. I am once again curious to know what the future holds… will 2123 still be a utopia? Unfortunately, technology cannot predict the future–yet.

Author’s bio:

Erika Ehrenberg is a recent graduate of the Global and International Studies program with a specialization in Global Media and Communications at �Ӱ�ԭ�� University. Now pursuing her MA in Migration and Diaspora Studies at �Ӱ�ԭ��, Erika is bringing her communications background to the field of migration studies. A fun opportunity to blend creative writing with academic scholarship, this essay is a display of her relentless optimism about the promise and potential of a collective digital future.

The post From Revolution to Reconnection: Tracing the Journey to a Digital Utopia appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Sofia Ali

Dear Diary,

The year is 2073. I came across a discussion post I wrote in a class I took in the fourth year of my undergraduate degree. The post was about what I believed the digital world would look like fifty years in the future. I thought we would have flying cars or talking fridges. I was wrong. This has me reminiscent of how different the digital landscape was back in 2023. We now live in what I would call a digital nightmare. The digital landscape in the year 2073 has caused societal downfall. Unchecked technological advancement and society’s reliance on technology have led to a world controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), filled with human isolation and the absence of ethics. Looking at the bias present in AI, the connection between our digital and social world, the relationship between technology and humanity, and how it leads us to human isolation, it is clear how we have entered societal downfall. I wish I could go back and tell my past self what I know now. I wrote this diary entry so that I can look back at it in the future and see what has changed.

I remember back in 2023, AI was on the rise. It was the next big thing. Who could have thought how destructive it could be? We should have known. Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s work was a wake-up call to society. It was one example of the discrimination present within algorithms and AI that affected all spheres of the public realm (Kantayya, 2020). While working on AI facial recognition technologies, Dr.Buolamwini found that these algorithms often could not detect darker-skinned individuals or women accurately (Kantayya, 2020). This was a milestone discovery. It uncovered more about society than just the mere fact that AI and algorithms could be discriminatory. This discovery showed how society and technology cannot be separated (Kantayya, 2020). The social aspects of the world were integrated into the technological aspects (Kantayya, 2020). Looking back at history, the people who have had the privilege to work on these technologies have been predominantly white men (Kantayya, 2020). Therefore, technologies such as facial recognition AI cater to them (Kantayya, 2020). Langdon Winner looks at how design choices of technologies reflect political and social values and can establish power or authority (Winner, 1980, p.134). This shows how much our social sphere gets tied into the digital realm. The exclusion of darker-skinned individuals and women from this technology is just one example of Winner’s argument that design choices of technological artifacts show power and authority. You can see who has power in society to see who is included in the design of facial recognition technology. Now, looking at where we are now in 2073, the increased diversity in facial recognition technologies and AI being able to detect people of colour and women have led to increased surveillance and discrimination. These technologies are being used against minorities. We did not learn from our previous discoveries how life’s social and technological parts are tied together. Therefore, the same technology that was made inclusive to minorities is being used against them. This is just one-way unchecked technological advancement and reliance on technology have led to the societal downfall. We can see through this lack of ethics.

Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist, once said that technology has an anti-human agenda (Rushkoff, 2019). He caught on to how technological tools and platforms were being created to help corporations, not to help people’s lives (Rushkoff, 2019). It was to extract value from people in forms such as time, data, consciousness and choice-making (Rushkoff, 2019). He coined early on that the digital landscape is becoming anti-human because of the biases of corporate growth, where companies are fueled by capital (Rushkoff, 2019).

That is what has happened to the digital landscape in 2073. It is almost like he knew exactly what would happen in the future. Rushkoff was able to identify the relationship between technology and humanity. He discussed how the internet could be compared to a drug, where you have to be mindful of the way you use it (Rushkoff, 2019). The only issue is, that society did not recognize the power technology had. This unchecked technological advancement and society’s blind reliance on technology is what led to societal downfall.  As Rushkoff said back in 2019, when something is invented, venture capital is what will dictate what happens with the new technology (Rushkoff, 2019). Even back then, we could see the appearance of the digital realm as capital-based rather than human-centred (Rushkoff, 2019). It was about what made the most money, not what helped people. In the current time, 2073, the reality has become that society is more worried about how programs affect the operational system of their computer when they install it instead of how the operational system will affect their lives when they are using it (Rushkoff, 2019). The relationship between technology and humanity has become unbalanced and oversaturated. Society has become dependent on technology instead of consuming it as a healthy diet.

Even back in 2019, Rushkoff mentioned that anything in digital technology is a substitute for something one can do in real life (Rushkoff, 2019). If only we had listened back then. This shows the clear link that has always been present between humanity and technology. This over-dependence on technology has led to isolation. Dating back to 2001, Fisher and Wright discussed that “in addition to the loss of strong bonds among members of society, many critics agree that the Internet will limit connections between central and peripheral actors in society” (Fisher & Wright, 2006). It can be said that computer and networking technology produce transformations in every corner of social life (Fisher & Wright, 2006). Now, in 2073, this is our only reality. Society’s blind reliance and dependence on technology now fosters human connection and interaction.
Humans have no reason to interact as technology now serves every purpose. The more dependent we have become on technology, the more there was isolation among humans. Real-life experience and sustenance were always necessary. We knew this back then, but 2073’s digital landscape can prove that corporations do not have individuals’ best interests at heart. Even back in 2019, Rushkoff mentioned that social media is filled with algorithms from slot machines (Rushkoff, 2019). They know how to hypnotize people. Now, in 2073, they have mastered it. There is no separation between the real world and the digital world. The digital world has become our real world. Human isolation has occurred as society is fully reliant on these unchecked technologies to operate. This has led to societal downfall as the corporations behind this are not interested in what humans want and need. Power has been placed into the hands of these big companies whose only goal is to make as much money as possible. As I previously mentioned, with the bias present in AI, we can see that a lot can be revealed about society in technology. Touching on Winner’s argument that technological artifacts show power and authority, the increased reliance on digital technology has caused power to fall into the wrong hands. As mentioned before, history has shown us that people with privilege could advance certain technologies, which excluded certain groups. There will always be greater themes present in our technology as we cannot separate the social realm from the digital realm.

I wish we could go back in time and use these discoveries and lessons to avoid this digital nightmare. If we had used Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s work for more than making AI more inclusive. We could have used her work to truly tackle the issue at hand, where our social bias will permanently be embedded into technology. The inclusivity in technology we added was used against the minority groups that were being excluded. Early on, we found that the design of technology gives power. Now, in 2073, this power is in the wrong hands. It is in the hands of corporations that are driven by capital and not human needs. Through looking at the history of AI excluding minority groups and how society and technology are linked, it can be seen how AI has been advanced to continue to put marginalized communities at a disadvantage. Our social realm will always be tied to our technological realm. This stresses the importance of ethics, which you can see a lack of in 2073. The digital landscape in the year 2073 is now filled with human isolation. Technology has taken over humanity due to society’s overreliance on it. We have reached a societal downfall. This unchecked advancement and society’s reliance on technology has led to this world controlled by AI with the absence of ethics and filled with human isolation. If we had taken what we had learned throughout history, we could prevent what is happening today. If I could go back, I would read this diary entry to myself.

References

Fisher, D. R., & Wright, L. M. (2006). On utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the internet. Journal of  Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2), 1

Kantayya, S. (2020). Coded bias. 7th Empire Media.

Rushkoff, D. (2019, May 10). Is Our Technology Future Utopian or Dystopian?

[Podcast; interview]. In David Pakman Show.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 121-136.

Author’s bio:

Sofia Ali recently graduated with High Distinction from �Ӱ�ԭ�� University’s Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management program, specializing in Communication Technologies and Regulation.

She continues to work in Policy and Communications in the professional world.

The post The Diary from 2073: Living in a Digital Nightmare appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.