"If open science is to have any meaning, then, it must be grounded in a politics that is emancipatory from capital and the problems of researchers being oriented around capital at every point"
it's about unions, reorganizing work, and ending extractive industries, not OA mandates

RT @samoore_@twitter.com

Why open science is primarily a labour issue

🐦🔗: twitter.com/samoore_/status/15

we can set our sights higher than changing who pays for our insular prestige games, towards challenging the information and attention industries swallowing us whole. rebuilding our systems of work and communication can be bigger than science, our problems are not just our own.

it's not abstract: as one of the few systems of work that largely operates without concern for profit, in desperate need for new means of communicating and disseminating information, rebuilding our work could help lift the grip of information industries across domains.


if you start pulling the thread of all the ways by which for-profit industries structure our work and foreclose opportunities, arguably the most important thing you can do if you want to be "just doing science" is to treat system change as your responsibility too.

@jonny though I love the idea, it seems there’s a high friction/transition cost for many folks. Though many are open to it (pun intended), even things like git/github are hard to train and integrate sometimes, especially for folks already set in their way. Correct me if you disagree, with many open source things, there are usually more responsibilities/work on the users, creating friction, which might be lessened with more commercial solutions.

then I take that as there being work to do to make better tools :). there are a lot of structural barriers and disincentives to addressing fundamental digital infrastructural needs (dealing with some now lol), but that, to me, means we need to change up the way we build and disseminate and maintain them. I have lots of specific ideas here but am sort of very fuzzy today and will be putting out a piece soon with more.

I disagree that commercial solutions are inevitably structurally more frictionless- profit and platformization have some development advantages, particularly in the short term, as you can fund the dev time and have more of an incentive for UX development, but any commercial system necessarily relies on some lack in the system that's the purposely withheld as the point of profit: slack is easy to deploy, but you have to pay for >n messages and an array of features...

there's a natural incentive for lock-in, which also distorts the broader tooling space as what should be basic infrastructural needs are served by a dozen quasi-incompatible platforms. FOSS has its own problems, particularly in science where there is no reward for writing good software, iterating on UX, or maintainance, but those are social and organizational problems that we can work on. ultimately the incentive structures of FOSS are more aligned with building infrastructure.

@jonny I agree with you on these points, especially in terms of being locked in with commercialized softwares or structures (like google docs) that initially are free to eventually lock users/orgs/univs in with bundled packages. By friction, I meant that these solutions are usually adopted (possibly because of traditions or locked in) early on, and might be harder for some people who just want to get their experiments done or graduate to change their mindsets …

@jonny and I think it is even worse with traditional publishing, especially with the perceived prestige that comes with it. I find it hard to convince more senior people/profs to adapt these new (still-need-to-be-tested but promising) solutions, even though they can recognize such issues.

@jonny I’d love to read them when they’re available :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.