Thinking about Jenkins’ approach to a participatory culture, which involves some skills for a full involvement, such as negotiation, collective intelligence, appropriation, among others, and the five forms of inequality identified by DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001), an inclusive civic technology should be able to foster these skills, since they are not found in many communities. It has more to do with education and cultural environment… According to Edgar Morin, for instance, a revolution of the educational system would involve thinking in a transdisciplinary way and reforming the teachers’ education in order to promote the connection between the fields of knowledge (it may take at least one generation… but I tend to be optimistic).

An inclusive technology would be one that the community creates it from the concept (like a bottom-up creation), considering its goals, and collectively design the system and then interpret the results in order to take action. However, the understanding of a problem continues to evolve during an experiment. Even the definition of a common goal is a hard task, considering the variation of individual views about a problem. So the methods of creation (co-creation) of this system should be evolutionary, like a living system (I just need more time to develop this idea in a comprehensive way 🙂 ).

About being bottom-up: actually, it may not be possible that this process of creation is really bottom-up, since the government sets some rules/policies (government as a platform). This is why I think that all these discussions about distributed governance is SO important nowadays.

An example from the real world:
I’m currently negotiating and evaluating the possibility of using a tool originally developed at MIT Media Lab, called “What’s Up System”, to adapt to the ZL Vortice Project (translations here). I’ll explain briefly about how the ZLV project team envisions the ZL Vortice platform first, an then I’ll talk about What’s Up System.

ZL Vortice Platform is a kind of a mapping that allows for an apprehension and understanding of the complexities of the territory (East Zone of Sao Paulo). It is not just about locating events and communities, pointing events on maps, but making the general urban context reveal the characteristics and the potential of local situations.

The platform will serve to indicate the most relevant cultural actors and creative processes in the region, and help local artists and creators to articulate networks and explore possible synergies.

It will also empower people to locate the proposed projects in infrastructure and redevelopment for the region, assess their design and monitor their implementation. It aims to provide everyone – from the technicians in charge of infrastructure and redevelopment to the communities affected by them – a tool that allows one to track / participate in the definition and implementation of urban interventions and public policy.

PLATFORM FUNCTIONS
1. To provide the urban and socio-economic survey of the East Zone, allowing users to view the urban and economic dynamics of the region, linking them to local situations and activities;
2. To make the sociocultural survey available, mapping the cultural activities, experiences, pictures and memories of local communities – a record of the ways of working, predominant materials and creative vocations of each area, assisting in the preparation of workshops with local creators and communities;
3. Regarding the construction of the informational device, it is aimed to co-develop technologies, procedures and design in partnership with the communities, teachers, students and international research institutions.

PLATFORM GOALS
1. To equip citizens and communities to participate in the design and implementation of public policies;
2. To empower local creators and communities to participate in innovative processes of design and production, articulating networks with companies and research centers;
3. To mobilize local creators and communities to participate in artistic interventions to update the aesthetic and operational repertoire of actions in urban areas and to contribute to the perception and renovation of places.

The What’s Up System is an open source city-wide information system that disseminates locally-relevant web content through a variety of “offline” channels that are easily accessible to everyone. Supported channels include digital signs, customized flyers and posters, SMS messages and a voice-based community hotline that is usable with the lowest-end mobile and touch tone phones. With the What’s Up system, one does not need to be connected to the Internet in order to benefit from the power of the Web (the figure below indicates an app, but it wasn’t developed yet).

 (picture taken from this presentation)

For Zona Leste, it is important to do participatory design experimentations in order to adapt the What´s Up System to the needs of this community. It is envisioned the development of the mobile application, since the use of smartphones has been popularized in region.

Now it is important to identify how it could evolve to achieve the goals that were envisioned by the project team, not only from the perspective of the tool, but considering the actions that the project team will have to take regarding the different forms of inequality that exist in that community.

What I have noticed is that unless you have specific technical skills, it’s very difficult to create new technologies. However depending on the learning curve, you can use many different kinds of technologies. Technological inclusivity has many layers to it.

• You can use a technology even if you didn’t design the technology. For many people with a certain level of digital exposure, you can utilize a lot of technologies.
• If you have limited or no access to the internet or to digital tools, you can’t participate or create.
• Even if you can participate, it doesn’t mean you can create.

Should inclusively mean simply being able to use a technology or should it also mean being able to transform that technology and/or create a new technology? There is not only a digital divide but also a divide between producers and consumers. The labor force doesn’t have enough people with the skills to be producers/creators which causes systematic problems that have ripple effects.

Broadcast Media

Today I took a tour of the Boston Neighborhood Network (BNN) on Washington Street in Roxbury. On their website they state that:

“Boston Neighborhood Network is a nationally recognized, award-winning community media center and 501(c)(3) nonprofit that acts as a public forum for all Boston residents, nonprofit and community-based organizations, and governmental and educational institutions, providing them with affordable training and access to emerging media technologies.”

BNN has been around for 30 years however I stumbled upon them last week while researching local television channels. When Cablevision became the cable provider for the city of Boston, part of the deal was that a portion of their revenue (around 5%) would support the common good. BNN is a platform where Boston residents can learn studio production and produce their own television shows. BNN offers membership, as well as volunteer and internship opportunities for any resident of Boston. The goal is to create a public forum for Boston residents from all neighborhoods to come together and talk about what is happening in their neighborhood and lives. As well as learn transferable media skills.

BNN has a program called the People’s Platform where residents of Boston can come to the studio, untrained, and voice their opinions and concerns about daily life in the city.

It is a space designed for inclusivity. However mimicking the macro problem of neighborhood segregation in a city, even so small as Boston, the residents who live closest to the studio end up utilizing the services more. The fact that it is in Roxbury, scares some people from coming in. When I talked to Janice, the manager of memberships, she said they are thinking of having satellite studios but that takes money and resources that they don’t really have.

Another problem of inclusivity for BNN is the medium, which is broadcast television. Given the switch to streaming content online instead of watching cable, BNN like other organizations are losing revenue. Which means they rely more heavily on grants, fundraising, and donations. And with less resources, there is less opportunity to invest in new technologies and media which is important when you are place for emerging media technologies.

One example is their drupal website. Janice is having a hard time fining someone to work part time with drupal skills to develop their website. Drupal developers are expensive as the supply is low and the demand is high. They need citizens who have these skills to help. Can BNN and NGO’s keep up with the pace of technological advancement given their resources?

There are organizations out there like Code for Boston who support public projects. But there are too many projects and a limited amount of people with the skills to help. The city of Boston has held a few hackathons to get coders in the community to help the city. Again the producers are a limited group of people. The concept of BNN is great, and as I toured the studio I was really impressed by the organization. There were independent producers who were local residents who were spending their time producing shows for the public. It is a real attempt to bring neighborhoods together and residents together. However as technology becomes increasingly important in society, and it differentiates the people who have and who have not, there needs to be a greater effort in ensuring that more people have the access and skills to not only participate but create. Imagine a model like BNN for emerging media instead of broadcast media? You need to train residents in the new skills of media. You need more people in the labor force participating rather than the same limited amount of people. And since technology changes so quickly, it requires investment and resources.

Here is a thought that is not original at all. There needs to be more people in the pool to make sure that technologies are inclusive.

Space exploration is one of the grandest feats mankind has
pursued. Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, sent the
following message with the Voyager spacecraft:

This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of
America. We are a community of 240 million human beings among the more
than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still
divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a
single global civilization.

We cast this message into the cosmos. It is likely to survive a
billion years into our future, when our civilization is profoundly
altered and the surface of the Earth may be vastly changed. Of the 200
billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some–perhaps many–may have
inhabited planets and spacefaring civilizations. If one such
civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded
contents, here is our message:

This is a present from a small distant world, a token of our sounds,
our science, our images, our music, our thoughts, and our feelings. We
are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope
someday, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of
galactic civilizations. This record represents our hope and our
determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe.

Space exploration has had immesurable impact on the connectivity
amongst citizens. The challenges of communicating to spacecraft have
driven immense amounts of research into communications protocols and
spawned generations of entrepreneurs. For instance, NASA was deeply
involved in the design of the ARPANET and its precursors, technology
which led to the internet. Andrew Viterbi, an MIT Alumnus who did lots
of Aerospace research, including designing the Viterbi algorithm which
was a method for deep space communications. Viterbi went on to found
an innovative telecommunications company Qualcomm, which is now one of
the largest companies in the world. The development of these
technologies is deeply rooted in space exploration, but greatly
enhances the communications between citizens. Space tech can’t claim
responsibility for the openness of the networks, but at least it is
responsible for its creation and rise in the first place.

These technical innovations not only improve the communication between
citizens, but also greatly improve the effectiveness of local and
national government by providing new tools for sharing information
more quickly. This can be used to great effect in everything from
coordinating responses to natural disasters to getting the pothole
down the street repaired more quickly.

The development of space technology is in a sense a perfect public
good.  Everyone in the world benefits from the innovations made from
space tech.  Space is the ultimate frontier. Innovations from space
tech include sustainable tech (such as solar panels), maker tech such
as 3-D printers, medical science, communication tech, better
insulating materials. Space also has the promise of permanently
blunting major inequality by mining resources from asteroids. This
paints space tech as a truly inclusive civic technology, because
everyone benefits from the fruits advanced scientific research bares.

Perhaps the most important public good produced by space tech is hope.
Hope that despite humanities differences and disagreements, we all
share a common goal. Up above the atmosphere, humans are able to put
all else aside and focus on the pursuit of exploration. For instance,
the International Space Station is as complex of a technical wonder as
it is a political miracle. Not only does it unite governments, but
also draws in the people of a nation to regain some faith in
government’s ability to focus on lofty, idealistic goals and achieve
miracles. By re-igniting faith in the process, space projects can
increase civic engagement. Interestingly, space projects actually must
engage the public to exist at all. The projects are expensive and make
a juicy target for politicians to cut when they are trying to balance
budgets. It takes angry Citizens who care deeply about this to raise
their voices and demand their country fund such projects. In order to
foster these dedicated citizens, space agencies must engage the public
at a deep level.

Overall, I think that it is a little bit silly to just use “space” as
a civic technology. But I think that is important to consider that mass
public scientific endeavors with lofty idealized goals make somewhat of a
perfect civic technology by not only benefiting the public good, improving
government, and communication between citizens, but also motivating public
engagement by inspiring hope.

In my opinion, civic technology can be split up into two sections. The first of these categories would essentially be a partnership between the government and the people. To begin, the government would put up issues that they would like for citizens to offer their input on. With the government overseeing the discussion, people can offer their ideas and show their support or their disapproval for a certain idea. In order to prevent a frenzy of ideas, the government should offer separate sections for coming up with ideas and another for showing support or disapproval. With the help of the people, the government could take the best course of action for solving a certain issue.

The second category involves monitorial citizenship. Even though the people wouldn’t offer their opinion, citizens could still help their government by monitoring it. Throughout the course of a campaign, a government official may make promises or seek to elected on a certain platform. Once they are elected, civic technology can ask citizens to analyze the official’s actions and whether or not they are in accordance with the platform taken during their campaign. Civic technology, when partnered with monitorial citizenship, can also get citizens to monitor the current state of their neighborhoods and suggest ways the government can improve them.

One website that I found that did a tremendous job of implementing the second example of civic technology was http://morsimeter.com/en. On this website, people were able to evaluate the actions taken by Egypt’s president in 2012, Mohamed Morsi. Prior to his election, Morsi made promises that he would change Egyptian policies regarding security, fuel, cleanliness, bread and traffic. With the help of http://zabatak.com/, a website that looks to inform Egyptian people about nearby crimes through having Egyptians create crime reports, Morsimeter was able to analyze Morsi’s action. By asking other Egyptians about their opinion on Morsi’s action, Morsimeter was able to determine whether or not Morsi fulfilled his promises by the end of his first 100 days in office. At the conclusion of his first 100 days, Morsimeter published their results. Their results showed that Morsi did not even complete a quarter of the promises he had made. To be fair, some of these promises were still in the process of being accomplished. Still, the majority of the Egyptian population that helped Morsimeter did not recognize any significant changes.

I consider Morsimeter to be an ideal example of what civic technology can do not only because of the goals it had but also by the way they achieved. They managed to get the Egyptian people to offer their opinion and they also used social media to expand the arguments that were being brought up on the website. Civic technology is a great tool that the people and government can use to improve society. Nevertheless, civic technology is still a tool and a tool is only as good as the people use it. Analysis means nothing unless some change can follow it.

Which is more inclusive, Disneyland or a traveling carnival?

To participate in Disneyland, you must buy an expensive admission ticket, which puts entry out of reach for many who cannot afford the fee. But once inside, everyone has equal access to all of the rides and attractions. (Almost) no one has any inherent advantage at enjoying Disneyland simply because they are white or rich. This type of activity is inclusive in the Habermasian sense—once inside, status is fairly well bracketed.

Meanwhile, anyone can attend a carnival regardless of whether or not they can afford an expensive admission ticket. The tradeoff is that people with more money have an advantage in enjoying the carnival, because they can play more games and see more attractions. This is the philosophy of many modern tech companies, who offer all customers a free service knowing full well that some segment of power users will achieve greater utility from the platform than others.

But exclusions can occur on the basis of more than just financial means. A far more pernicious form of exclusion is exclusion based on ideology, because such exclusions create faux public spheres that purport to facilitate discourse but in actuality are little more than echo chambers. An example of something like an ideological Disneyland would a moderated internet forum. If you don’t hold enough majority viewpoints you run the risk of being denied entry (banned), but if you do, then all users have roughly the same level of power.

An ideological carnival, on the other hand, would be something like Twitter. Even individuals with fiercely anti-majority views can access and use Twitter, even though they will never have the same power (i.e. number of followers) that other users may have.

Viewed in this light, it becomes apparent that the carnival is a fundamentally more inclusive model of technology, because the carnival philosophy at least has the capacity to ensure some positive utility for all people, whereas the Disneyland philosophy provides no utility for people who cannot “afford” entry.

The primary argument against the inclusiveness of the carnival-type approach to technology (with little to no exclusions based on ideology) is that groups of users can band together to “silence” others, even though the silenced individuals have the technical ability to use the service. This is the “Twitter trolls” argument, which is that the service effectively allows Bad People a heckler’s veto. What this argument fails to consider is the difference between self-imposed and system-imposed restrictions. For example, it is difficult to have a conversation both in a library and at a rock concert, but in one case it is because you as an individual don’t want to make noise because of social conventions, and in the other case it is physically impossible to hear each other. It is fundamentally better (more inclusive) for any silencing that occurs to happen because the individual involved personally chooses to be quiet than it is to have the system physically prevent an individual from speaking, assuming we are agnostic to the views involved. Thus, the carnival approach defeats the Disneyland approach because all censorship is self-censorship (which, while not great, is better than the alternative).

So the most inclusive possible technology, in my view, is one with no bars on entry and no removal-based moderation. While (ironically) I don’t use it much myself, reddit fits this bill fairly well. Individual subreddits do not, but the service as a whole allows anyone to make a subreddit and post almost whatever they please. I suppose it might be worth pointing out that “most inclusive” does not necessarily mean “best.”

I consider CodeCademy and other websites that teach computer programming to be fantastic examples of inclusive civic technology. Our readings from last week talked about how now digital inequality is not defined by differences in access to technology, but rather in literacy, so I feel that inclusive civic technology should seek to promote digital literacy. Full participation in the digital public sphere requires considerable technical sophistication. For example, it may be important for digital citizens to understand how to encrypt messages in order to communicate in a secure manner with others, especially in countries where governments spy actively on their people. This may sound extreme, but almost all complex digital interactions require at least some understanding of files and filesystems, the Internet and routing, email protocols, and more – think uploading photos to Facebook, using BitTorrent, or setting up a desktop mail client. If they are not in a better position to use technology, those with greater knowledge of computer systems are at the very least more likely to know when new technology could be useful and to actually build it.

I claim that learning how to program is the first step to gaining a thorough high-level picture of the mechanics of common computer systems. Sure, beginning programmers on CodeCademy may start with high-level interpreted languages like Ruby or Python that provide little insight into the underlying capabilities of the hardware. But the right Ruby or Python tutorial – and I believe CodeCademy has many of these – shows a learner the power of programming and the range of tools that can be programmed and inspires them to dig deeper. When a Python programmer tries to open a connection to another server and gets some opaque error, they will likely be motivated to learn more about TCP and the other protocols that power computer networks to understand exactly what could have caused the problem. The basic libraries of Python and Ruby touch a number of central concepts, including networking, filesystems, user interfaces, numerical methods, and more. If a curious programmer expanded out from this basic core, they would soon find themselves with a fairly thorough grasp of many key ideas. They might be motivated to learn a language like C that exposes more of the bare hardware to them, giving them an intuition for what can be done in a computer system. I think this intuition – for the capabilities of a machine or the capabilities of software running on particular operating system – is what helps a digital citizen challenge the conventional wisdom about what is possible, enabling more effective use of technology or creation of new technology. For example, a less educated citizen may see that his BitTorrent download is taking a long time and may blame his slow network connection, not thinking that maybe BitTorrent is not using much bandwidth because it is not opening concurrent network connections or that a different torrent altogether may be faster because it will connect to different peers. A more educated citizen might recognize the power of the Bitcoin blockchain to form the basis of some new means of peer-to-peer exchange that is impervious to government spying.

In all, the basic understanding of programming that websites like CodeCademy provides can motivate many previously nontechnical citizens to learn about the underpinnings of the digital public sphere and empower them to be content creators and influencers.

The ideal civic technology for me would be one that is affordable to anyone, not only for their price, but also for their convenience of use and for their learning curve, it should also be widely spread and as transparent as it could be. I don’t think there’s one technology that could be THE civic technology, but I could think about some examples of technologies that help the citizens and that get some of the characteristics.

The first one is the bicycle, this transportation technology has enabled the communication between communities for a long time, their presences in the cities is something normal, the learning curve of riding a bicycle is not to high. The main reason that I consider it a civic technology is because their use is getting people to transform their communities, in some rural areas the use of the bicycle help to get clean water, medical assistance or even get to school. One of the projects that I find more fascinating is in the Wixaritari mountains, where the Huicholes lives, a group of social entrepreneurs had been working with the local people in different kind of projects, but they realised that the children had to walk around 5 to 20 Km each day to get to school, the students would get tired to school so it could affect the way they learn. With the use of bicycles they could get faster and easily to classes, and not just to the school they could also travel to other communities.

Distances between communities. Photo: Wixabikla

The impact of the bicycle in the community is both in short and large term, in the short one the kids could get a more easy access to school and to other places, but in the large term preventing the childrens to drop out school or facilitating that they could attend, the community at large would get benefited. The use of bicycles in rural communities isn’t something new but from time to time is good to look back and see that a simple invention powered by human force could help to change a community and that we don’t always need to use the latest electronic technology or the most complicated line of code to change lives.

Photo: Esteban Gutierrez Hermosillo

The other technology that I have in mind is the use of SMS and text based applications like WhatsApp, the uses of sms had been around for a long time, from notifications to direct communication between people, and to banking transactions. The use of this technology has allowed rural areas of Mexico to get banking services, with the sms’s people could get p2p transactions, check their account balance and send money to others, the use of this kind of techonolgy in rural areas where banking/ATM’s aren´t accesible could help to change the communities, not just enabling them to do transections, but to get financial education and start saving money within their accounts and use less cash. It also helps to the government to facilitate the cash flow in this communities where some of them have the closest bank several hours away.

Both technologies -bicycles and SMS- are widely available, their uses help people to get a better live and to engage in some activities that other wise they couldn’t, the civic participation goes beyond voting or engaging with the government, it goes to the engagement with the community, in both examples the people could engage with their communities and use the technologies to get some changes, using the bicycles to attend to schools, get medicines or even attend community meetings could empower the citizens. In the othe hand the sms not only enable the people to get financial services, they also enable them to communicate between communities, get news faster from outside and even start selling their goods to other communities.

Creating an ideal inclusive civic technology is not easy. There are some questions that seem to require compromise no matter what the answer is. The use of anonymous or real names is one such question. Anonymity will generally encourage more people to participate, especially in places where the government may be monitoring citizen activity online. The trade-off with anonymity may be civility. The use of real names probably encourages more considered dialog because comments will be associated with someone’s real-life identity. In the choice between these directions I would generally come down on the side of anonymity, because dissenting opinions are more likely to be expressed. Anonymity is probably more inclusive in this sense, although it would be interesting to look at whether some people intentionally refrain from participating in certain civic technologies that uses anonymity because the discourse has become too uncivil.

Given the use of anonymity, are there other ways a civic technology can encourage civil discourse to ensure its inclusivity is not compromised by incivility? How are community norms set and maintained? The use of moderators is one way to encourage certain kinds of participation and discourage others. Livestream.com has a fairly developed chat system, which includes deleting or removing inappropriate content, banning users who repeatedly violate community norms, and even blocking ip addresses. Reddit offers another possible option for handling moderation: to actually post the rules for contributing to subforums. The tone and tenor of new civic technology platforms may be set by some of the earliest users, so thinking about inclusivity is something that needs to happen before a site is even launched. Perhaps “seeding” the discourse that happens on a new site could be an effective way to get things headed in the right direction.

Another factor that any civic technology concerned with inclusivity should consider is platform. While it is important to note that “digital divide” discussions also need to look at how people use the internet once they do have access, I would argue that a global view toward maximizing participation needs to take the mobile platform very seriously. Are we even possibly at a “mobile first” design inflexion? It appears that mobile has now overtaken fixed internet access globally. So if we are thinking about inclusivity, ensuring a solid mobile experience that is as light on data requirements as possible seems essential for those people who may not have easy access to fixed internet connections, or use prepaid data plans, as much of the world does.

A further design question around inequality might try to address the other side of the digital divide: how can a design process include consideration of differing levels of support, familiarity, and comfort with online tools and platforms? This might lead to a platform that has incorporated participatory design, or the designers might consider including less-skilled internet users in their early design and testing processes. For example, it would be interesting to look at how widely adopted the newest swipe gestures are. In the default iOS mail app for example, how many people actually use the pull left / pull right functionality? If those levels are low perhaps inclusive design actively avoids using these lesser-known gestures.

As a final though about constructing an ideal civic technology, one important component I would want to consider is fun. Civic technology sometimes deals with heavy issues. And not everything can or should be gamified. But if using a platform is actually fun, people are more likely to participate. Even a platform like SeeClickFix tries to make documenting problems fun through their systems of points and whimsical ranks like “digital superhero.” The Harry Potter Alliance might be another example, where fandom is used to encourage participation through campaigns like the “What Would Dumbledore Do” campaign. The “Israel Loves Iran” Facebook campaign is another example of using a sense of fun and appreciation to widen civic thinking. This might foster inclusivity in more subtle ways. Instead of feeling righteously angry after using a civic technology platform to fight the world’s injustices, what if users were left with a feeling of enjoyment?

These are just a few ideas to maximize inclusiveness. No one answer is sufficient, but a combination of reducing blocks to participation through consideration of identity and community, and with careful design centered on the facts of global internet access, plus a sense of making civic participation enjoyable, we might reach a broader group of people.

When I consider an inclusive civic technology, it must satisfy the following three criteria:

1. The technology must be free to the end user.
2. The technology must require minimal dependency costs.
3. The technology must have minimal time and effort costs on its end users so that all people can use it regardless of their other time commitments or level of education.
4. The technology must not have any norms about who uses it or why they use it so that nobody from any background is discouraged from using it.

With that in mind, let’s play with these criteria while examining three similar technologies: Lawn signs, street art and bumper stickers.  While all three of these technologies accomplish similar goals, to allow an end user to publicly display and endorse a cause that they want to promote, the way they enable their users to do so places them in different locations within our inclusivity space.

The first technology to consider is lawn signs.  With respect to the first of our criteria, lawn signs are frequently given out for free by the organizers of campaigns and movements.  This means that anyone who is in the vicinity of someone who is either a leader in a campaign/movement or is connected to a leader in a campaign/movement can likely get free access to them. So the upfront cost to the end user is zero.  Yet when we look at the second criterion, dependency costs, we see a different scenario.  Because lawn signs are mostly useless unless one has a lawn, the dependency cost is the cost of a lawn (ie property) which is actually very high.  With respect to the third criterion, the only effort required to use the technology is the amount of time required to push the sign into the ground.  And with respect to the fourth criterion, lawn signs do have some norms about who should be using them: those with lawns to put them in.  For those who don’t (the poor or even just those who live in apartments) a lawn sign is not a useful way to publicly endorse a cause.   For a politician to hand out a lawn sign, they are essentially saying “I’m handing this out to gain support among the land-owning class and nobody else.”

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/PoliticalSignsRepub2.jpg

Another example that works toward the same goal is street art.  Various political movements hand out slogan bearing stencils to people with the hopes that they will use them to create street art which promotes their message.  Again, the cost of the technology is born by the movement organizer making it free to the end user. To use the technology, the end user does need to have access to some form of marking device (spray paint, chalk, etc).  While this is theoretically a dependency cost, it is extremely minimal so I’m not willing to exclude this from the category of inclusive for this reason.  Again, the time and effort cost are also minimal, as it really does require just the time it takes to hit a wall with spray paint or chalk.  Yet, this fails on our last category of inclusivity – it requires the end user to potentially break the law or reject certain values in order to be able to use it.  Even if it isn’t breaking the law, some may view the act of writing a message on a public space as disrespectful, even if in chalk.  By handing out stencils with political slogans, a movement leader is excluding those who may be against marking public spaces with their messages.  Thus, stencils and various other forms of street art do not fit my criteria for inclusive.

Source: http://s198.photobucket.com/user/zombiedollmaster/media/Aug131.jpg.html

The last example is the civic technology of bumper stickers.  Bumper stickers are mostly free to the end user – politicians and leaders of political movements frequently cover the capital cost of printing stickers and hand them out for free as a means to promote their cause.  While the name ‘bumper stickers’ might suggest that there is a similar dependency cost caveat because they are only for those with cars, I argue that this does not apply because bumper stickers are very frequently placed on personal items that are not cars, many of which are extremely cheap or even free.  Bumper stickers also impose minimal time and effort costs on the end user – the only cost in this domain is the amount of time it takes to peel off the back and stick it to something that will be publicly viewed (the bumper of a car, a window, a street sign, etc).  Lastly, bumper stickers have no community or stigma associated with the technology itself as people from all backgrounds can be seen using them, meaning they won’t exclude anyone for social reasons.  Therefore, bumper stickers pass all of my criteria for being an inclusive civic technology.

Source: http://www.makestickers.com/image/makestickers/bumperPolitical.jpg

These three civic technologies – bumper stickers, lawn signs and street art – all accomplish the same goals.  Yet the implications of using these technologies place them in very different locations within our inclusivity space, with only bumper stickers falling within the ‘inclusive’ boundary.