 Hello Anna and Tan here. Hi. Hi. Hello everyone who's watching us on this amazing global wiki TV station. We're glad that you're with us, although we cannot see you very well, but we hope there will be some small string of connection happening between us because we know you can share with us your questions and we'll do our best to answer them. But my name is by the way Alec and I'm very happy that we'll be having this conversation about the paradox of open. But before we start, we agreed that each of us will introduce themselves and Anna will go first. Okay. Hi everyone. My name is Anna Masgal. I am senior EU policy advisor working on behalf of our community in Brussels and talking to EU institutions about issues of concern currently speaking to you from Berlin. Tanveer. Thank you Anna and Alec. My name is Tanveer Hassan. I'm joining you from Mysore, India. I work with the Community Resource Esteem at the Wikimedia Foundation. Over to you Alec. Thank you. And my name is Alec Tarkovsky. I'm strategy director at Open Future Foundation, recently founded Think Tank for the Open Movement. I'm also on the board of Creative Commons and I consider myself a friend of Wikimedia. I'm a member of the Polish Wikimedia Association but not a very active contributor but nevertheless really think a lot about Wikimedia and I think this description of a friend is very fitting, I think. So welcome Anna and Tanveer and basically this session although it has this formal name I think of a panel or a discussion, it's actually a conversation. I really wanted to have this conversation about an idea that's very important for me and that I want to start with this session by introducing a bit. It's an idea that there's a paradox connected to openness. Basically by saying that I think the basic idea is that openness changes over time. I think even saying that is already not said often enough. The open movement, open ways of doing things, open ways of sharing, approaches that emerged by now 20 years ago, some of them even later such as free software really are in flux, they change over time and the context in which openness happens also changes and we really need to be asking how open changes. This is important for me personally because I've been doing this by now for around 15 years. As a much younger person I founded the post chapter of Creative Commons sort of very energetic and excited as a young man to be doing that and then over the last 15 years I've been observing the movement, observing Creative Commons and partner projects like Wikimedia and seeing how they develop and the paradox of open is an attempt by me and my colleague Paul Keller from the Open Future Foundation who wrote this essay together with me to come to terms with what's happening. So what is happening? Here's the short story. Maybe some of you had the chance to look at this essay. If not, you can easily find it online on our webpage and I would encourage you to read it. It's sort of a story of what happened to open. Here's how it goes. Somewhere around the turn of the century we were all very enthusiastic and had this very bold, optimistic and utopian visions about openness and the idea that empowers the world. An idea that allows more freedom, more justice, simply a better world, better internet, but also a better society. And with this idea we started creating projects like Creative Commons Wikimedia, open access publishing, open education and then open data, open hardware. I could go on and on and on. But then probably after a decade we started seeing that the revolution basically didn't happen. Maybe we need to wait for it a bit longer, as is the case with open access. But in some areas it seems it simply will not happen. The really big Creative Commons idea was open music and I think by now we all know there will not be some mainstream Creative Commons licensed album probably coming soon. That's pretty clear. So this revolution didn't happen, but something else happened. In the meantime the online ecosystem really changed and these huge online platforms emerged, which are today usually called Big Tech, based on models that are usually, I really like the term extractive. So they take resources like our attention, personal data about us, content that we create and extract value from it often or usually without contributing to this ecosystem. I think this part of the story is very often told. We try to add to it when we say paradox of open that openness plays a role in all of this. Where are we with openness today in the year 2021? On one hand I think it's still a very strong vision of a better world. Some might say it's overly optimistic or naive. I believe still in open basically. But I need to acknowledge that at the same time openness enables some of the problems we face. And the case that we usually mention when we try to describe it is a case that emerged around three years ago, which has to do with photographs of faces of people. Most of these photographs can be found on Flickr, but also in places like Wikimedia Commons and it turns out that several years ago big companies like IBM started basically crawling these databases of photographs and looking for photos they can use to train AI systems. And indeed they created data sets that play a fundamental role in training AI for all sorts of uses, both research and commercial both benign and actually military systems. And this is a story that shows some sort of limits to this idea, this basic value of sharing. Limits of imagination, people who shared photos of themselves say, I never imagined AI will be doing this, being trained or AI researchers maybe more correctly. People point to limits of open licensing itself because they say, well, this provides no protection for our personal data. So this is sort of an exemplary case, but there are probably many others we can mention. Maybe Tanvir and Anna will share their cases. So basically we say in the essay that openness is both a challenge and an enabler of concentrations of power. And this is the paradox we are facing. So wrapping up this short introduction, it's important to mention Wikimedia because we are at Wikimedia. And Wikimedia is actually a bit unique in this story because when I said the revolution did not happen I actually believe that Wikimedia did cause a revolution. It is a unique project, maybe not the only one I could mention a few more, but uniquely successful, uniquely proving that open sharing can function. And I also think which I think is not said often enough, I think of Wikimedia as a platform which again is very just. It's not tracking users. It's not using data to display ads. A lot of good things happen on Wikimedia and also on related Wikimedia projects. But at the same time the Wikimedia community faces just the same challenges related to concentrations of power related to how Wikimedia content is being used and possibly value is extracted from it. And this is the point where I will stop and ask Anna and Kanvir to, because I'm curious, how you see this paradox. And I hope you will also say a bit more about this from a Wikimedia perspective as you're a lot more engaged in this movement. And we didn't agree who will go next. So let's see. Whoever presses unmute first can go. Like in some TV show. Well, we are trying to let the other person through the door first in this situation. There's definitely lots to say. First of all, I want to encourage everyone to read it. It's a very good piece of not only analysis, but also sometimes there is something like a paralysis by analysis. We get too much in the woods. It's actually to me the sort of bird's eye view on where we are. And it points me to in a lot of directions and kind of sums up for me a lot of thinking that I had myself doing projects with the wildly recognized, let's call it open movement for the lack of a better thing. I can totally see how this thinking also evolves and we have proof of what you're saying. Namely, the way I understand it is that you're saying that the hell is paved with good intentions in the sense that our projects are created from the good place and definitely serve many good purposes. But of course, because they are open and so in discriminatory, in who can be the recipient of them, they become used for many purposes. And of course, you can say it about many inventions of humankind, right? That this happens and whoever first discovered a knife maybe didn't really think it's going to be a deadly weapon, right? But moving on from banalities like this, I think we are in this particular moment in which we really can see that whenever we look, if it's about music, if it's about content, if it's about agriculture, if it's about access to healthcare and to medicines, we basically see the same kind of story, the same anecdotal evidence about how basically the system that is now being set up is the system in which Casino always wins, right? So as you rightly point out in your essay or in your analysis, basically the one who has the best resources to reuse whatever is being produced in the open movement will win, right? And the rest may be helped by it or may not be helped by it. It may be for people in the global north as we know a question of whether to pay for something or get it for free, but also we know and we have these conversations with Tanvir many times. In other places in the world, it's a question of having access to something or not having access at all, right? Because of barriers in resources but also in barriers in availability of things. So this is also where I see it rings very true to me. I want to tell about, say about two examples were actually which prompted me into thinking that this is really the case and then hopefully we can also talk not only about how bad the world is right now and how great it was when the web was decentralized and we didn't have the big platforms, basically, five people deciding what's on the menu today. But we also can talk about what we can do about this. But one was definitely when Susan Wojcicki at one of the conferences in the US was tackling the issue of disinformation and she basically, without understanding anybody from Wikimedia, she basically said, well, and we have this great idea that whenever there is a video that is fiddling some conspiracy theory or some other content like that is really not true or false. We will basically put the links to articles on Wikimedia and people can go and verify, right? Which basically means, well, this is the way I read it. This is our new idea, how to privatize the profits and socialize the cost by sending all those trolls that are watching those videos to Wikimedia. I let them fight with the editors that do all that work for free. So to me, that was first this wake-up call in a way to say, hey, there is something fundamentally wrong not with how we may be doing things but how basically the system is rigged against OpenProject in a sense that they are treated as something that is basically there to be used and to be captured and to actually be... And there's no social return on that capture, right? Those companies don't give back. And I think this is where... And also there's a question how they should give back. It's not an easy one, right? And the second was also unfortunately involving Google and more precisely YouTube is when YouTube apparently had this idea that basically the public domain content that we host should be actually not scraped from YouTube but the videos should be embedded, which of course means that everybody who interacts with such content that is embedded is actually exposed to Google surveillance machine. And I find it at best as basically complete inability to sort of check the temperature of the room and see who are those people that we're dealing with and the damage such a change would bring to our project and to all that we stand for, I think would basically chase us in the years to come, right? So to me these were the two examples where that was actually really entering our yard and the third one obviously Alek what you mentioned the training of data but I can talk as you know for a long time so I'm gonna stop here and pass over to Tanvir and speak at some other point in this conversation. Thank you so much, Anna. To pick up from the point that Alek was earlier making about open being a paradox because both it's an enabler and also a direct challenger to the way that opportunities come, right? There's also a double paradox there. If you look at the way open has emerged and has evolved, the earliest of the open came from the bourgeois class to help create a very pro-literate open. I'm using dated terms here but just bear with me for this example. But at this point open is also becoming a fad wherein the pro-literate class is creating a very bourgeois open which means that you would have all of this content that's available for you for reusing for remixing and to work with it but what is the relationship between the influence and the importance of the content? Because if you really think about open there are two things that come to you right away. The validity of open does not go with numbers it's just something that's picked up now. We've been talking about the importance of a platform only when YouTube has prompted us to say about views or Facebook has given us options to measure how many likes we have or how many friends we have. The legitimacy of open was not on these numerical or very quantitative right? It was at the level of importance it was at a very high intellectual level. So there's a relationship there that we need to understand. If you look at the earlier open that was created by bourgeois people but again sorry for the term but then the open was very hard working in nature the open was very utilitarian in nature it did not look for influence it looked for important content which became which was important became influential and that's how we started understanding of our open but if you look at the future of the open it's not as simple as that it's completely reversed and that's the double paradox. Here is content coming from emerging communities, emerging markets however you want to put it and then that content is being repacked to talk about influence to not talk about importance. So as long as open does not want to take this question head on and say where do we situate the future of our movement? So open is this beautiful idea, this brilliant idea that's had troubled past and is going to have a difficult future but all is not lost like Alex said what we need to now try to understand or try to unpack is for the difficult future are we going to make it difficult for the users difficult for the contributors are we going to make it difficult for people who come to open to work with it or to profit from it the commercialization or the extractive the word that Alex used earlier is a key denoter here by the nature or by the ethos of open it's going to be inclusive or it should strive to be inclusive but it does not mean that it should make it easy for everybody and that's probably where we'll get into the conversation around enterprise, we'll get into the conversation around monetization because we're calling something open or just because something is termed as open does not mean that it should be flat it can have varied interactions it can have varied understanding of how do we work with various stakeholders if you're going to say that it's a flat world or it's a flat domain and you would be able to run as much as you want simply depending upon what skills and what capacity you have you're taking away the inherent value of something that's created out of a system of values and what you're just leaving there is a platform I don't think that's the strength of open the strength of open like Alex has pointed out and the two examples that I gave very vividly illustrated is that the values that were created is not at the level of the platform so we also need to try and have a conversation about if today this is the way that we understand this platform probably the other ways to talk about I'll just give a very simple thinking that I have in my head and then I'll hand it back so there is something called a Bollywood phenomena that happens a lot in India so think of a movie that has like a almost a stereotype or a formulaic thing if you have 10 or 15 such movies or 10 or 15 such previous examples it's not going to go any further just take it a little bit and then that movie is going to become a commercial hit and what happens is very interesting you're going to get the same kind of formula repeat it again and again this is this indicates two things one is that people do have more attention when something is appealing so what is it that makes them come back to the same thing when they very well know that this is exactly what is going to happen so that the predictability of the future is very important when you're trying to engage gathering other than the set of committed individuals so I think that phenomena of ensuring that even with predictability there is an engagement there is an opportunity for you to work with will be the future of all of this that we're talking about Thanks Alec you're muted Yes I muted myself at some point this requires some technical skill it's easier to just stay unmuted I think if you want to do that I don't think it will be a problem if all the three of us are unmuted also there's a pretty live audience with the etherpad there are already four comments and questions there which obviously creates some challenge for me how to listen to you and read it but maybe we'll come to them in a moment and we should still talk a moment I wanted to add one thing that I think builds on what you said Tanvir and that's something that we don't write too much of open it's this category of use and reuse for me the sort of the formula that I have by now memorized by heart is that open is access plus the right to reuse and for this reason I think open access is doing very well because reuse is very simple you just want people to read articles basically and maybe it gets a bit complicated today with automatic ways of doing things and open is for instance a lot more complicated in art and education because using things for instance a teacher is really making it live making it adapted to needs of different learners and so on and so this category of reuse is fundamental and for me one of the big things I observed over 15 years actually a lot of the reuse is not happening for instance I've done quite a bit of work on open data where everyone just dreams of reuse right open data enabled apps the government shares weather data and there are some amazing new things happening it doesn't seem to be that much the case or as we know it's the big companies that gladly pull in the data because they'll always find the use for it as we all mentioned so for me this is part of the challenge and I understand that's what you Tanvir mentioned I really like this flat world idea right that world is not flat it's complicated and in many places it's hard to participate but then for me the change becomes how do we fix that I'm not sure we'll get there but this is the moment where for sure I get stuck a bit so what might be interesting to put that question in perspective is what would be the intent of our future open the intent of our past open is pretty evident right it was supposed to be utilitarian in nature but right now the intent of open is not just that intent of open suddenly became competitive suddenly became a talent and skills showcase I mean could you have imagined that you're going to put something on GitHub and somebody would look at it and say and hire you on a big tech platform I don't think in the filest of the dreams that was one of the places so when you have this fight not even fight let's call it a tussle when you have this tussle between extraction and intent something very curious happens utility emerges out of it now the question is when utility starts to emerge who is the first one to sense it somebody who already knows what to do with that is the first one to make sense of it so the idea that I'm trying to discuss here is that the radar of utility is not usually active in individuals or a group of committed individuals I don't think that's what they are committed to do the radar of utility or the radar of extraction is active in corporations because that's what they have been thinking about if you look at the way that startup hubs talk innovation hubs talk about they are not talking about this big scale changes so to say they are talking about that next big change that is going to grab our attention that is going to get us talk about it in a very in a very in a very often term I'm using the term viral here if we are not intentional about where our open is going I think we'll be creating a platform, we'll be creating a domain that is going to be rife with opportunities but also going to never talk about its own problems so I think intentional I find that very interesting because that's what in theory you're not meant to do with the open right you sort of sorry this will be a bit of a digression but I read this you know sort of idea, a spiritual idea that you make an intention and wait for the universe to solve it and I realized that's basically what we wanted to do with open right like we don't know what's going to happen to it but the universe will find the user and it wasn't the universe but YouTube it seems but so that's a pretty bleak image right if only the big gets bigger what do we do with that Anna when you hear these cases that you provided what's your response to that for the movement or for your advocacy work well yeah, big questions I think Sandeer for framing it in a way of basically sort of reimagining what this could be because I think it's very important for me one of the most important interesting threads in the conversation about how to even approach you know like renegotiating what open is if we agree that we don't want to just produce content and not care how it's used right if we want to be able to look at the broader is to actually look at the other end of it and which is basically what are the rights of people and communities to refuse to be open first and bear with me and I'll explain because if we if we pave over that we also do and thank you Tanvir for saying this is a bourgeois open I completely agree because you know what bourgeois had and what was the greatest invention of bourgeois leisure time and what you can do during leisure time you can volunteer and I think this is something that we cannot really overstate that it's a luxury situation to be able to to be part of that movement as a hobby or as something that is very very important and by hobby I by no means want to diminish it but but you have to have the time which means that the food is on your table that your family is provided for that you have all sorts of other things taken care of by yourself and also by the society that you live in so so one example was when I went to there's communication congress and there was a village of queer anarchist beautiful folks and they put out a lot of posters that you could take or just you know make a donation and many of those or brochures or texts all sorts of things like that and and many of them were licensed as creative commas non-commercial license and I spoke about this with them because to me this was always the kind of a failure of the open why do we even have that license it's really weird right and I understood that this is their way of saying we want to share it with people who know what to do with it we don't want to share it with people that want to extract that value and if they want this they need to ask us and then we decide whether we agree but if somebody wants to do it for commercial purpose then they have to go through that process right it's not to say that all commercial uses could potentially be bad or hurtful or or in any way diminishing the original message it's just to say that many of the of the uses are commercial that those that those people don't want right and the other end of this conversation happens a lot I think when we are in touch with with indigenous communities and people working with them and and trying to evaluate how we can actually be of service to to that endeavor and and Tanviro and I already had this conversation a couple of times with our friend Alejandro who always also brings that perspective that basically what we consider as sharing and as something that is unambiguously good to to many of those communities is yet another form of colonialism coming to extract what they have right they already gave many of those things never came back to them think of medicinal knowledge think of you know the the devastation that comes with actually extraction of resources but also of you know anthropologists coming and asking the same questions again and again and not understanding things and and basically taking their time so we also need to think about that you know if we want to be responsible in the open we need to also respect people's rights to say no we don't want to do it that way or we want to do it with parts of that and actually help actively to find protocols that help them feel comfortable on their level of of what they want to have open or not right and not say oh no these people don't understand what it's about they are not with us right I think this is also a part of that conversation that that we need to take care they may be because they understand the value of that they are just not in the position to give anymore right so this is something that to me is very important and I have lots of questions still how can we be better helping those communities and how can we better you know adjust what we have or provide our knowledge to serve them in a way that is good for them and not only for us there's something else that's very interesting here so when I say that open has become extractive or open has allowed extractive nature extractive forces to operate and to shape some affair I'm not against the gains here I don't think gain is the problem here profiteering is the problem here and I understand that in open it's understood and it's accepted that profiteering is a very viable and probably even a welcome way but there has to be an integral way of talking about it if you look at it if you look at open as a philosophical concept who are the people or what are the levels in which gain should happen either the platform should gain or the partner should gain or the people should gain in an ideal condition all of these three will gain that's the the real philosophy or that's like the embodiment of the open philosophy that the platform gains and then the people who are associated with the platform gain and probably a partner will also gain but when you try to subside either of these and make it one is to three or make only one part of this try and have an unnatural or an unexpected on an exponential growth I think that's the problem that I'm trying to talk about here it's not about commercial success it's not about somebody making money it's about what those resources do when you have made money that's the question just like the content that comes in like almost everybody who's in this session here come into this conversation with a good intention about open and that's a challenge that open has not been able to grapple until very recently what is what happens when your intention about open is in direct contradiction or is in a complete paradoxical nature of the way that you imagine it we are willing to disagree with people but what if you are willing to disengage or what if you are not willing to engage with people at the level of open what happens when fake news wants to claim a piece of open because it's open right that's the way that we have framed it so that's the point where a lot of our next generation problems and next generation contentions around open are going to happen it's no longer going to be about whether open is open or not I think that's today's problem the next problem is not going to be about utility at all the next problem the next big problem about open is going to be about are you really open because we have already seen this we have seen this in three different spheres we have seen this in the way academic world has worked we have seen this in the way that research has worked we have also seen this in the way publishing has happened the next territory where or the next domain where this is going to happen is in open and are the stewards of open prepared for this either at the level of the institution or at the level of individuals or even at the level of the way that we want to intellectually present that the reason why I'm such a big believer in Wikimedia projects and probably OSM to a great extent is because we have found a way to talk about it there are regulations we still don't have a philosophy to talk about it but we have a process to talk about and hopefully this process will grow and evolve with all the questions that come but if you want to just say open and forget it or open and just leave it at that there are no processes and where will those processes happen that process will not happen when you create an article that process will happen when you talk about the problem so I think that's again something that we have to look at our institutions to do this so I'm just going to do a little bit of an advocacy pitch here the institutions that are at the level of the working of the community should take the question of content and also should take the question of the future of the content we will get content if by and by with all of the communities coming in with all of the new developments in technology we are going to get content I don't think we are hard pressed for content quality of content yes I agree but what about the future of the content when do we get to talk about it because that question is very symmetrically and very symmetrically linked to the future of open if I can add something listening to both of you I keep coming back to this thought that I keep having in my head when I think about the continuation of this essay so let me start by saying that this original open has the advantage of being a simple right you said flat world flat world is like a very simple place you know what it's going to look like and the simplicity for sure allow these open models to scale and I think the whole challenge is that the moment we start talking about managing it needs to stop being so simple that's not a problem yet though it is a challenge right but fundamentally maybe it can be solved though to be honest there seem to be a lot of conversations using terms like Ostromian comments right so managed opinions, regulated comments but I don't see this happening in real life and my one worry is that I think one of the best mechanism we have today for managing content are algorithms and I think the big sort of to say it in simple terms advantage of Wikipedia is that when I open the front page it doesn't algorithmically choose an article that I should read and that's a huge advantage of open that people often don't talk about right this is a philosophical choice by the way it could very easily there's nothing in open stopping the open platforms from doing that but most of them I haven't researched this but my gut feeling is you don't do it and that's my worry that I think a lot of ideas about managing comments, managing permissions managing responsibility will quickly have to shift to IT tools by the way I need to say one two things we have ten minutes left and we have a lot of comments in our etherpad that I'm basically I'm very sorry to our listeners unable to process what I think I can do I don't know about whether Tanvir or Nana have time I'm happy to join you in our remote world and maybe chat with you a bit because honestly we have no way of addressing them but I'm very happy for maybe I can ask one question from the comments at the end because it's a cool provocative question anyway I don't know Tanvir maybe you want to continue. I actually was looking at the comments and there is one that I specifically want to address because it was really something that was on my mind as well so somebody says so if we have gone from the UTD Terrent to bourgeois does that mean we need a revolution and a pivot and I think it's a very good question as provocative as it may seem to some that I agree with Tanvir that the question of today are very quickly followed by the question of tomorrow and to me the question of tomorrow is that we sort of need to have a conversation on a very general level of what do we do with this world as it is of now because also part of this conversation is about to what extent to me one of the questions if you talk about platforms we capturing things and benefitting from them and not giving back is that basically can we by producing more content or shielding it somehow can we change the way the world works right or not right but do we even want to right and I think the question is and it's the same question for you know for creative commons community which I think there are a lot of overlaps with but also in terms of licensing right is what do we really want to do what do we want you know as a community as a movement do we want to make this work better which basically to me would mean or you know kind of patch what's not working which basically means that we are following after some deficiencies and try to fix them but in general we have no problem with how things are set up or do we actually say well the problem why you know the content is being used that way is not that we do something wrong but that what I said before that the actually system is rigged against that right system is a very eager to capture free labor and not give anything back right so this is so do we need a revolution right and it's not the question you know of my personal view whether we need it if you ask me yes I think we do but of course it's not for me only to answer I think we owe ourselves this conversation right and what it means really right what it means for the people who have different views about that right and generally like the world that it is now because either they benefit from it in some way again no judgment here right or they just you know don't question it for this rather reason right it's I think with the strategic discussions in Wikimedia we came very close to discussing that question in a sense right when we talk about knowledge equity for example which is basically knowledge justice out of a better way to explain it it doesn't mean that we just move you know a bit like scooch a little bit and make a room at the at the end of the table you know and somebody may sit with you know half of their you know sitting area and you know listen to what we have to say no it means that we have to really sit in face our privilege and confront with it right so these are also we have parts of those conversations but we don't I think really have it really you know set up right what do we do with this mess right and it brings me to another point that I would just maybe say and then that will be my closing remark is that we lack intersectionality in what we discuss right Wikimedia or you know or Creative Commons or music or open educational resources what happens with them sometimes you know how they are being used to better understand the evidence to what happens everywhere right agriculture same thing same story right now we see this whole debacle about you know IP around covid vaccines right which is to be fair what happens in Europe is graceful how much you know resistance is to is to that so so basically to me this is also something that we cannot just look that we have this beautiful encyclopedia and that's it right and part of this conversation is to find some sort of overarching narrative that is actually putting together all those efforts that aim at more sharing more practice because we focus on the output we focus here on the content but it's also practice is what people do with their lives right how they interact together what sort of society we we built online that's important and we don't get to discuss this right and we don't get also celebrated so to me this is also an important point where we need to open up a little bit and nothing only about how many just to simplify it even if it's not fair right how many you know pieces of open content we can put out right but also you know what is the sum of all that work you know for the humanity and how people can really take part in that right not only by you know checking in which year somebody was born or whatever other information than look but also as as people who then get agency and get freedom and get also to be a part of something that is wonderful and that I think is you know it is frankly you know a great hope for internet if we can continue doing what we can here we're wrapping up slowly do you want to meet one more yeah I think I'll just take the last with that Anna put in the agency question and link it with the question of open that we have been talking about I mean the idea of big open was romantic right that it was it was such a romantic idea we all wanted it to succeed but if you were to think about it and I still hope that it will succeed but if you think about it there's something curious player there which is if you look at the larger intersectionality or utility that Anna mentioned the value of knowledge is not as much as it was earlier there is an inherent drop in the way that we understand value of knowledge this could be because of the of the N number of resources available the N number of experts available but price of education has gone up and this is when open is functional so if you take a look at any of the emerging countries and the cost of education it's gone super super super expensive how did this happen when we had a functional open domain so we are coming back to the question of the intent if and very and not even theoretically at a very experiential level if the value of knowledge is contested and if the price of education is high then what kind of messages are we sending to the larger community that wants to contribute to the corpus of knowledge I think that's a question that I would leave today to unpack thank you so it's slowly time to wrap up the last thing I want to say hopefully it connects Tanvi and Anna your thoughts this political intentionality is very important and we don't mention it in the essay because the question is of responsibility I think often the creators of open content are actually not responsible for the power imbalances and are in a very difficult position because one of the only strategies possible would be an exit one stop doing that and I'm not actually sure the world would get better without the open projects but what they should be doing is they should be more political and that was how I saw some of the conversations in the movement strategy where I was not happy with the final outcome because I believe that participants in the open movement are people who are already very aware of what goes on in the online environment as compared to your average person and they have a certain obligation to use strong words basically fight for the shape of this environment that used to be done through advocacy through politics of a sort and I see very little of it I think you're right Tanvi very often we think this is utilitarian work producing content basically yes maybe the content will get produced but someone needs to defend this model this way of being together and if I was to name something that is for me a strong outcome of our conversation as a reminder to pay attention to that but I think we've reached a certain point of a short chat about the future of open I hope we'll have more chats I can see more people we should be chatting with in our etherpad Tanvi you still want to say something go ahead I just wanted to give a big shout out to Marti who's taken such excellent notes I just realized that Marti has been taking very very good notes thank you Marti so thank you to all of you I personally really like talking about the future of open I think Tanvi and Anna do as well so we're happy to find more opportunities to do that please get in touch if you find the topic as fascinating as we do and have a great day