{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","uuid":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","normalized_title":"thestackonsoftwareandsovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","isbns":["9780262029575"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":517,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Stack%20On%20Software%20and%20Sovereignty","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/search"},"page":{"printed_page":245,"pdf_page":261,"physical_index":261,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"ba09ef5ab215110ea2dad9760cdcee81c08ee1cee9a76a2221d57e49f312271a"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"Fanon ’ s account gives a glimpse of the future politics of the Interface layer of The Stack. Whereas radio relies on speech and active description, AR provides direct and automated perceptual annotation; however, just as for Fanon ’ s example, noise reinterpreted into essential significance will surely play a key role in the dissensual interfacial politics to come. It should not be difficult to imagine two different AR regimes, both describing the same City layer but with completely different maps of what is there, what it means, and what interactions are rewarded or discouraged. <sup>65</sup> In the tension between two or more narratives, their diagrams not only describe events; as the medium of some omniscient command, they also partially determine them. Pulling laws off from the safety of the page and projecting them onto the surfaces of the real world is also to alter their weight and accentuation. AR media don ’ t just imply their intentions for bod ies in motion; they explicate them, and they don ’ t just signify power they pronounce and program it in distributed cognition and artificial embodiment. AR adds the world to the interface, as much as, if not more than, it adds the interface to the world. Regard less of whether any two alternate interfacial totalities are locked in a dualistic battle, one drawn across the other in some friend/enemy division (as for a war of decoloniza tion or for Ingress) the mingling of overlapping totalities brings some degree of noise and ambiguity. Any given site in the City may be overcome by multiple competing perceptual totalities, systems, or sovereign geographies, but for any of these, what are the terms of encounter with the alien software platform and belief circle? Only war? If this were so, then the societies sustained by these would be impossibly fragile. As the Cloud layer may be where competing political geographies are interwoven, as for the Sino-Google conflict, the Interface layer is where those overlaps are literally inscribed at the level of everyday action. Again, each interfacial regime, total or not, articulates its specific reductive version of the world in which its own geography is sovereign, and through these diagrams, the User composes actions through The Stack that enforce and reinforce that same totalizing worldview. But that any single User may be interpolated not by one but by many such interfacial regimes at once, any one site is defined not by purification but by the alloy of multiple totalities at once (even if each totality would explicitly exclude the others in principle). The User must then manage more than one exclusive totality at once, and the multiple identities and agencies that each regime provides to the User position. Modus vivendi gets you through the day, as one User occupies multiple walled gardens at the same time and place, as she co-occupies them with other claimants, friends, and foes. This jumbling may be essential to how The Stack works as a platform for totalities by cohering the agonistic and dissensual drawing of geographies, simultaneously exclusive and inclusive of one another. This tangle of utopias is another integral accident of the Interface layer as it attempts to host the various investments in this geography of multiple geographies. <sup>66</sup>\n\nInterface Layer\n\n245","previous_page":244,"next_page":246}