A Modest Proposal: (Possible) Implications for Appropriation

As technologies are developed and constructed, designers may or may not be aware that they are embedding politics and values into their artifacts. Computer scientists operate and advance their field by building layers of abstraction into software and hardware to reduce the complexity of interfaces, making the artifacts they create zuhanden for others in part by imposing constraints. The increasing reliance of global populations and economies on communication mediated by many information and communications technologies (ICTs) transforms them from applications into communications infrastructure, elevating the importance of considering the values embodied in those infrastructures. I argue that the status quo bias and economic inertia of built-infrastructure requires a reevaluation of research in light of the de facto global technocracy to consider a nouveau social contract between infrastructural theorists, scientists, designers, and engineers and the current and future generations who will be constrained by that infrastructure as it is reified. The CHI community is uniquely situated to establish a norm of including a discussion of the implications of appropriation as first class topic in research output. INTRODUCTION The hope and promise of a great deal of scientific research, including theoretical computer science and HCI research, is that the ideas, discoveries, and designs expressed might one day be instantiated and used to alter the world [5]. Yet the discoveries expressed in scholarly research might be appropriated in ways unforeseen by the authors or contribute to systematic, unpredictable effects on society or the environment [8,9]. The responsibility for these effects does not ultimately rest on the shoulders of the scholar given the impossibility of conceptualizing all of the potential (mis)appropriations of their work, but on the implementation of technology informed by their research. Nevertheless, a small measure of responsibility remains with the scholar to consider the implications of appropriation of their discoveries. Applications of Computer Science are built on the notion of layers of abstraction. Graphical User Interface (GUI) programmers are not generally concerned about making sure the mouse cursor moves when the user physically moves the mouse since the Operating System (OS) is handling that. Likewise, OS programmers are not generally concerned with translating network signals between electrical impulses and bits since that takes place in the Network Interface Card (NIC). If GUI programmers had to fully understand and implement every element of their GUI it would be virtually impossible to write even the simplest web browser, for example. Computer Scientists working on this underlying hardware and software infrastructure make it zuhanden for other programmers by authoring Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and agreeing on standards (like x86) so that those other programmers can built on top of their contributions without fully needing to know the details of the implementation. Although powerful tools, APIs and layers of abstraction introduce countless opportunities for the introduction of values into computing infrastructure (regardless of the intent of the author) by constraining the space of possible uses by definition. Every day global society becomes more and more dependent on computer mediated communication for everything from discovering romantic partners to automated financial oversight. The construction and maintenance of these communications technologies is typically overseen by a blend of industry, scientists, interested stakeholders (e.g. RFC’s maintained by the IETF), and traditional governing bodies. The extraordinary influence wielded by the unelected, tech-savvy elite over this infrastructure suggests the de facto presence of a marketand meritocratically-elected global technocracy determining the values of global communications infrastructure. The emergence of this amorphous and dynamic global governing body requires the consideration of a nouveau social contract between contributors to the design and construction of infrastructure and the current and future generations who will be constrained by that infrastructure. Given the challenges associated with making predictions, it is not the responsibility of each researcher to attempt to embed positional values in their work, but merely to consider the social and environmental arenas that could be significantly impacted by their work. The CHI community should establish a norm of including at least a very brief discussion of these implications of appropriation as a first class inclusion in research output.