[^progammableinfrastructures]: Seda Gürses, Roel Dobbe, Martha Poon "Seminar on Programmable Infrastructures" (2020).<https://www.tudelft.nl/tbm/programmable-infrastructures/>
[^progammableinfrastructures]: Seda Gürses, Roel Dobbe, Martha Poon "Seminar on Programmable Infrastructures" (2020) <https://www.tudelft.nl/tbm/programmable-infrastructures/>
[^titipi]: Miriyam Aouragh, Seda Gürses, Femke Snelting, Helen Pritchard "The Institute for Technology in the Public Interest" (accessed on 2020) <http://titipi.org/>
@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ Summary: What type of bots are being made?
[bridge to previous section e.g. having just explored infrastrucutral harms we now move to explore bots]When we say bots, we refer to software agents which automatise certain actions and can run autonomously or semi-autonomously. [perhaps provide an example to make it more concrete to the reader]
The particular bots we are interested in for this online module are those that act as an interface between the digital platform and human users, or what [Andreas] Hepp calls communicative robots[^hepp], robots that "are defined as autonomously operating systems designed for the purpose of quasi-communication with human beings to enable further algorithmic-based functionalities – often but not always on the basis of artificial intelligence" [page numbers].
The particular bots we are interested in for this online module are those that act as an interface between the digital platform and human users, or what Andreas Hepp calls communicative robots[^hepp], robots that "are defined as autonomously operating systems designed for the purpose of quasi-communication with human beings to enable further algorithmic-based functionalities – often but not always on the basis of artificial intelligence" [page numbers].
In this section, we will introduce Darius Kazemi, a computer programmer and artist, and Andreas Hepp, a professor of media and communications [replace with [professor of media and communications at the ZeMKI, University of Bremen]]
In this section, we will introduce Andreas Hepp, professor of media and communications at the ZeMKI, University of Bremen.
[^hepp]: Hepp, Andreas. "Artificial companions, social bots and work bots: communicative robots as research objects of media and communication studies"
Summary: *Communicative bots*, *communicative embodiment* and *infrastructural embodiment*.
Andreas Hepp is Professor for Media and Communications at the ZeMKI (Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research), University of Bremen, Germany. In the paper[^paper] we mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, he distinguishes three kinds of *communicative bots*: artificial companions, social bots and work bots. For Hepp, communicative bots are characterised through a double embodiment: a *communicative embodiment*, referring to the bots' human-like representation, and an *infrastructural embodiment*, referring to the bots being embedded in the materiality of the infrastructure on which they are active.
Title: Question 5: What role do they play in the construction of the social world and what does this say about their relation to power relations in society?
Summary: How do bots relate to digital infrastructures?
Darius Kazemi is a computer programmer and artist, whose work engages with bot making and self-hosting social networks. He organised the Bot Summit[^summit] in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
@ -37,11 +37,27 @@ If we think about a commercial platform as a structure or surface on which actio
---------
All of these points were written with commercial platforms in mind, however, exciting developments are happening in federated platforms such as Mastodon [mb: rephrase, we already introduced the Fediverse in Darius' section], where users are part of defining features and possibilities of interaction. There, the norms of the platform and the way they are codified into the technical structure are more often revised and reformulated together with the people using the platform, as Aymeric Mansoux and Roel Roscam Abbing have pointed out in their article *Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS*[^theses].
[mb: i think that this section on the Fediverse can work well on a next page, for example under the title "centralized vs. federated networks"]
[mb: insert quote from A & R here? Now we only mention the text.]
All of the *bot logic* points were written with commercial platforms in mind, however, exciting developments are happening in federated platforms such as Mastodon, where users are part of defining features and possibilities of interaction.
This in itself creates a different space for bots. However interestingly enough, with a different infrastructural system comes a different type of ruleset. On platforms like Mastodon, bots need to both comply to the terms of services of the API and to community agreements such as a Code of Conduct.
To understand how Mastodon operates differently, it is useful to look at two examples of communication platforms that employ different network topologies and governance models: Twitter (centralised) and Mastodon (decentralised, federated)[^mastodon]. Both microblogging platforms Twitter and Mastodon have a significant amount of bot agents.
How do these bots relate to their computational infrastructures *differently*?
As opposed to Twitter, Mastodon is a free and open source self-hosted networking service. Anyone can become a node in the network by installing the software and thus federate with other servers. The nodes, or user bases, are referred to as "instances" which have community-determined norms. There, the norms of the platform and the way they are codified into the technical structure are more often revised and reformulated together with the people using the platform, such as a Code of Conduct.
Mastodon is part of a bigger network, which is also known as *the Fediverse*, which has grown into a social media space that is currently used by more then 5 million people. In contrast to social media platforms as Twitter, Instagram or Facebook, it consists of a whole range of different *kind of* social media: blogs, micro-blogging, photo-sharing, video-sharing, link-sharing, etc., that can exchange posts and content with each other. Each instance does this, however, under their own terms. In contrast with the top-down organisation of centralized networks, the Fediverse and its federated network typology allow different groups to configure their network differently.
Interestingly enough, with a different infrastructural system comes a different type of ruleset. The federated network structure of the Fediverse also has concequences for bots. On platforms like Mastodon, bots need to both comply to the terms of services of the API and to community agreements, such as the formentioned Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines.
<!-- , as Aymeric Mansoux and Roel Roscam Abbing have pointed out in their article*Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS*[^theses]. -->
<!-- [mb: insert quote from A & R here? Now we only mention the text.] -->
<!-- [^theses]: Mansoux, A., Roscam Abbing, R. (2020). "Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS"*The Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture, eds. Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, and Berlin: transmediale e.V., Feb 2020, pp 124-140.* -->
<br>
@ -51,6 +67,6 @@ This in itself creates a different space for bots. However interestingly enough,
[^platformlogic]: Andersson Schwarz, J. (2017). "Platform Logic: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Platform-Based Economy" *Policy & Internet, 9(4): 374–394. DOI: 10.1002/poi3.159*
[^theses]: Mansoux, A., Roscam Abbing, R. (2020). "Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of FLOSS" *The Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture, eds. Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, and Berlin: transmediale e.V., Feb 2020, pp 124-140.*
[^means]: Williams, R. (2005[1978]) "Means of Communication as a Means of Production" *Culture and Materialism. London: Verso.*
[^means]: Williams, R. (2005[1978]) "Means of Communication as a Means of Production" *Culture and Materialism. London: Verso.*
[^mastodon]: Mastodon, *Social networking, back in your hands* (accessed on 30 October 2020) <https://joinmastodon.org/>
15
content/Section 6 - Critical Interventions Through Bots (exercise)/2-materiality-of-bots.md
Talking about the materiality of bots might sound a bit funny at first. It is crucial though to closely look at *how* and *where* a bot operates, in order to imagine in what kind of ways they can intervene in an infrastructure. To do this, we will study the materiality of bots.
Talking about the materiality of bots might sound a bit funny at first. It is crucial though to closely look at *how* and *where* a bot operates, in order to imagine in what kind of ways they can intervene in an infrastructure. To do this, we will study the digital materiality of bots.
<!-- We use the term*materiality* by following Johanna Drucker's definition of*performative materiality*[^drucker]:
@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ The first ingredient will not come as a surprise: **code**.
If we look at the digital materiality of a bot, we can say that a bot is a script: an executable file that sits on your computer or on a server. Code is used to describe *how* the bot makes a connection, *what* function it has and *when* it comes into action.
There are a whole range of programming languages that a bot-maker can use to make a bot. Popular programming languages are Python and Javascript. The choice for a specific language is often based on the preference of the programmer, it is a bit like picking your favorite flavour or color. However, the choice for a programming language can also be based on the availability of a so called *library*: a friendly wrapper that enables a programmer to interact with an API.
There are a whole range of programming languages that a bot-maker can use to make a bot. Popular programming languages are Python and Javascript. The choice for a specific language is often based on the preference of the programmer. However, the choice for a programming language can also be based on the availability of a so called *library*: a friendly wrapper that enables a programmer to interact with an API.
### API's {#APIs}
@ -43,15 +43,15 @@ So to sum up: a bot is written in **code** and uses an **API** to interact with
### Background processes
To run the bot, we need one more last ingredient: a so called **process**.
To run the bot, we need one more last ingredient: a so called **background process**.
A *process* is nothing more then a term to refer to the act of putting the bot into action. In the most simple version, this can be done by running a script from your own computer. In a more complex version, you could upload your script to a server and run it from there continuously as a **background process**.
A computational *process* is nothing more then a running script. In the most simple version, this can be done from your own computer. In a more complex version, you could upload your script to a server and run it from there continuously as a **background process**.
Why would you run a bot continuously?
As bots usually operate over a long period of time, you might not want to run them from your own computer, as this means that you need to keep your computer on for a long period of time (imagine you want to keep a bot running for a year!).
Instead, bot-makers often run their bots from a server. There they can run the bot as a *background process*, which allows them to continuously run a bot without their own precense. Processes can be stopped, started or restarted at any time with simple commands. Their status can be checked (to see if a bot is still running for example) and logfiles can be accessed.
Instead, bot-makers often run their bots from a server as a *background process*, which allows them to continuously run them without the need to be present. Processes can be stopped, started or restarted at any time with simple commands. Their status can be checked (to see if a bot is still running for example) and logfiles can be accessed.
These three ingredients (*code*, *API's* and *background processes*) provide insight into the digital materiality of bots.
@ -61,8 +61,9 @@ In the next page we will further unpack the material implications of code, by zo
## Footnotes
[^bucher]: Taina Bucher (?) *Objects of Intense Feeling: The Case of the Twitter API*
[^drucker]: Johanna Drucker (2013) *Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface*, <http://digitalhumanities.org//dhq/vol/7/1/000143/000143.html>
[^bucher]: Bucher, Taina. "Objects of Intense Feeling: The Case of the Twitter API" *Computational Culture 3* (2013) <http://computationalculture.net/objects-of-intense-feeling-the-case-of-the-twitter-api/>
<!-- [^drucker]: Johanna Drucker (2013)*Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface*, <http://digitalhumanities.org//dhq/vol/7/1/000143/000143.html> -->
89
content/Section 6 - Critical Interventions Through Bots (exercise)/3-programming-logic.md
Summary: Loops, if/else statements, variables and more.
> People, things, events are "programmed", one speaks of "inputs" and "outputs", of feedback loops, variables, parameters, processes, and so on, until eventually all contact with concrete situations is abstracted away.[^weizenbaum]
<!-- > People, things, events are "programmed", one speaks of "inputs" and "outputs", of feedback loops, variables, parameters, processes, and so on, until eventually all contact with concrete situations is abstracted away.[^weizenbaum] -->
<!-- [^weizenbaum]: Weizenbaum, Joseph "Computer Power and Human Reason, From Judgement to Calculation" (1976) -->
As bots are written in code, they are based on the features and constraints of *programming logic*.
To unpack this term, we will speak about:
To unpack this term, we will look at how the following elements are operating, specifically in the programming language Python:
A loop is an element in programming that allows you to execute a single line of code multiple times. It is a central figure in automatising a task that is repetitive.
By using for example a `range()` loop, you can ask the program to execute a command `x` many times. In the following example, the `print()` command is asked to return the word `bot` as many times as the loop is iterating.
```
for n in range(5):
print('ha' * n)
for x in range(5):
print('bot' * x)
> bot
> botbot
> botbotbot
> botbotbotbot
> botbotbotbotbot
```
Another type of loop is the `while` loop, which allows to repeat a command for an infinite number of times. This type of loop can be stopped by a manual interruption of the programmer, usually by typing a specific key-combination, such as `CTRL+D`.
> ha
> haha
> hahaha
> hahahaha
> hahahahaha
```
while True:
print('bot')
> bot
> bot
> bot
> bot
> bot
```
Other loops, such as the `for` loop, are useful to iterate over a specific set of items. If you would like to write a bot that would, for example, post a message of each sentence of a book, you could loop over all the sentences and `print()` them one by one.
```
sentences = open('book.txt').readlines()
for sentence in sentences:
print('sentence')
> This is the first sentence.
> This is the second sentence.
> This is the third sentence.
```
### if/else statements
A next element in writing your bot could include the description of specific behavior at specific moments. If/else statements are used to trigger certain commands `if` a specific condition is met, or `else` execute an alternative command.
```
for x in range(5):
if x <3:
print('Counting ... ' + str( x ))
else:
print('Nearing to the end ... ' + str( x ))
> Counting ... 0
> Counting ... 1
> Counting ... 2
> Nearing to the end ... 3
> Nearing to the end ... 4
```
### Variables
## Footnotes
[^weizenbaum]: Joseph Weizenbaum (1976), *Computer Power and Human Reason*
4
content/Section 6 - Critical Interventions Through Bots (exercise)/5-situated-bot-code.md
For this exercise we will make use of the digital infrastructure of the *Fediverse*. Darius Kazemi introduces this federated network in his video contribution ([*Watch it again here*](09-s3-question-5.html)).
The Fediverse has grown into a social media space that is currently used by more then 5 million people. In contrast to social media platforms as Twitter, Instagram or Facebook, it consists of a whole range of different *kind of* social media: blogs, micro-bloggin, photo-sharing, video-sharing, link-sharing, etc.
For this exercise we will make use of the digital infrastructure of the *Fediverse*. We briefly unpacked what the Fediverse is in section 4: Bot Logic ([*Read this section again by clicking here*](02-s4-bot-logic.html)).
The federated structure of the Fediverse is an interesting infrastructure to work with in this exercise, in two ways.
Welcome to the online module *Bots as Digital Infrapunctures*.
Inspired by the potential of *digital infrapuncture*, a term described [rephrase, she coined the concept] by researcher Deb Verhoeven, this module brings bots and infrastructure together as *infrapunctures*. *Infrapuncture* is a portmanteau word which conflates *infrastructure* and *acupuncture*, referring to small-scale interventions that have a catalytic effect on the whole. [add some sort of explanation e.g. The term emerges from the need to reconsider our infrastrucutres - frought with hurt pertaining inequalities and exploitation - in terms of capacity and care] This module explores what role bots can have as infrastructural stress relievers [add, as a means to engage with the norms and values of computational tools and infrastructure].
Inspired by the potential of *digital infrapuncture*, a term coined by researcher Deb Verhoeven, this module brings bots and infrastructure together as *infrapunctures*. *Infrapuncture* is a portmanteau word which conflates *infrastructure* and *acupuncture*, referring to small-scale interventions that have a catalytic effect on the whole. The term emerges from the need to reconsider our digital infrastructures, study their underlying systems of inequality and exploitation, and acknowledge their limits in terms of capacity and care. This module explores what role bots can have as infrastructural stress relievers, by actively engaging with the norms and values inscribed into computational tools and infrastructures.
[mb: insert prototypes as arguments]
The model intertwines theoretical and practical work together, [mb: insert prototypes as arguments].
# Goals
The goal of this online module is to foster [add, what Karin van Es terms]*tool criticism thinking* (e.g. the skills and practices for critically engaging with the norms and values of our computational tools and infrastructures). The module consists of readings, videos and exercises that help you analyze and reflect on how infrastructural agency, impact or power is shaped, structured and performed.
The goal of this online module is to foster what Karin van Es terms *tool criticism thinking* (e.g. the skills and practices for critically engaging with the norms and values of our computational tools and infrastructures). The module consists of readings, videos and exercises that help you analyze and reflect on how infrastructural agency, impact or power is shaped, structured and performed.
