{"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":402,"pdf_page":416,"physical_index":416,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"7f3e0286ff4340f23546a164d192bccb71e7bd22e8289cc75767988f3e9c1dc7"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"57. In this famous TV advertisement aired only once — during the 1984 Super Bowl — a young rebel representing Apple hurls “ a torch of freedom ” into the screens on which the face of “ IBM ” drones on. The promise is that with Apple ’ s new colorful day, 1984 (the year) will not be like 1984, the Orwellian dystopia. If the reader is unfamiliar with the advertisement, its Wikipedia page will explain its significance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984\\_%28advertisement%29.\n\n58. See Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). For an example of Limbaugh ’ s Apple love see http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/search/?query=apple & go.x=-299 & go .y=-365 & go=go. For a unusual and interesting take on Jobs and Wozniak ’ s early relationship, see the Steve & Steve comic, http://www.steve-and-steve.com/.\n\n59. “ What then is an object? In the literal sense it is: ‘ that which has been thrown or which one throws in front. ’ Are world-objects lying in front of us? The global dimension that characterizes them eliminates the distance between us and them which in the past defined objects. We now live in those world-objects as we live in the world. ” From Michael Serres, “ Revisiting the Natural Contract, ” trans. Anne-Marie Feenburg-Dibon, CTheory, May 11, 2006, http://www.ctheory.net/ articles.aspx?id=515.).\n\n60. For more on the urbanism of these hubs in the City chapter, see John D. Kasarda and Greg Lindsay, Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll Live Next (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).\n\n61. See Farhad Manjoo, “ I Want It Today: How Amazon ’ s Ambitious New Push for Same-Day Delivery Will Destroy Local Retail, ” Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small \\_business/2012/07/amazon\\_same\\_day\\_delivery\\_how\\_the\\_e\\_commerce\\_giant\\_will\\_destroy\\_local \\_retail\\_.html.\n\n62. As this book was going to press, Google announced that it would create a parent company called Alphabet, with many experimental initiatives moving outside of Google proper. It is not known how the reorganization will impact or revitalize the company ’ s founding mission, but the reader should infer that “ Google ” refers here to all ventures included within the Alphabet enterprise.\n\n63. A typically simplistic and misinformed example is Shoshanna Zuboff ’ s thought piece, “ Dark Google ” in Frankfurter Allgemeine, April 30, 2014, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ the-digital-debate/shoshanna-zuboff-dark-google-12916679.html. We are provided with several of the most shrill and counterproductive tropes of Google bashing: taking what Eric Schmidt says in op-eds at face value as representing Google’s strategy, or, worse, as representing Google ’ s geopolitical and geoeconomic significance, power, or danger; conflating user feedback and pushback regarding strange new forms of data transparency with some deliberate and explicitly criminal mischief on Google ’ s part, including misrepresentation of what practices were and are secret and which are merely unusual and controversial; insisting that confusion about the ambiguous social logics of secrecy and privacy in a network society is proof not merely of disenchantment but of innocence betrayed by bad actors; insisting that the inability to articulate a coherent political description of Cloud-based social systems is demonstrable proof, not just of a general confusion, but of Google ’ s willful violence; insisting that the only way to adjudicate these new Googly\n\n402\n\nNotes","previous_page":401,"next_page":403}