Feminist Infrastructures and Community Networks

origi­nally publis­hed here

Autho­red by: 

Bruna Zano­lli Carla Jancz  Cris­ti­ana Gonza­lez  Daiane Araujo dos Santos  Débora Prado

Orga­ni­za­tion: 

Vede­tas, radi­o­live.org, Actan­tes, PPGS-IFCH/Unicamp, Rede Base Comum/Casa dos Meni­nos, Lavits, Labjor

Website: 

http://rede­au­to­no­ma­fe­mi­nista.org/fuxico/

http://www.casa­dos­me­ni­nos.org.br

Atta­ch­ment	Size
gw2018_thema­tic_Femi­nist infras­truc­tu­res and commu­nity networks	1.49 MB

Femi­nist infras­truc­ture and commu­nity networks: An oppor­tu­nity to rethink our connec­ti­ons from the bottom up, seeking diver­sity and auto­nomy

Intro­duc­tion

In this report we intend to examine three expe­ri­en­ces with commu­nity and auto­no­mous networks – by focu­sing on rela­ti­ons­hips that are esta­blis­hed between diverse women and non-hege­mo­nic groups and consi­de­ring the over­lap­ping of discri­mi­na­tory systems that can be expe­ri­en­ced based on sex, gender, race, ethni­city, class and other axes in an inter­sec­ti­o­nal pers­pec­tive. [1] These groups have been enga­ged in deve­lo­ping and craf­ting new commu­ni­ca­tion tools and infras­truc­tu­res in their local commu­ni­ties. We want to share our view as rese­ar­chers and acti­vists that networks cons­ti­tute an array of rela­ti­ons that go beyond the mere act of sharing and distri­bu­ting access to a parti­cu­lar kind of tech­no­logy, inclu­ding when commu­ni­ties reclaim the use of elec­tro­mag­ne­tic spec­trum, buil­ding radio and mesh networks.

From a femi­nist pers­pec­tive on tech­no­logy and infras­truc­ture, we briefly discuss our assump­ti­ons in this field consi­de­ring that tech­no­logy is neit­her neutral nor deter­mi­nis­tic. The opera­tion of a commu­nity network implies rela­ti­ons­hips between a multi­pli­city of indi­vi­du­als and social groups with diffe­rent pers­pec­ti­ves, inter­ests and needs, and who are not affec­ted in the same way by socio-tech­ni­cal systems given exis­ting inequa­li­ties such as race, class, nati­o­na­lity and gender. This means that tech­no­logy initi­a­ti­ves and the way that they are framed can produce inequa­li­ties and diffe­ren­ces that empha­sise the poli­ti­cal struc­tu­ring of the social world emer­ging under the impact of the mate­rial inter­net infras­truc­ture. Commu­nity networks also show that tech­no­logy is a terrain of strug­gle on which hege­mo­nic forces express them­sel­ves through speci­fic design stra­te­gies in oppo­si­tion to non-hege­mo­nic groups that are never­the­less more or less success­ful in influ­en­cing the future form of the network infras­truc­ture with which they are enga­ged. 

Whene­ver voices, expe­ri­en­ces and reali­ties of people with little or no access to the inter­net are homo­ge­ni­sed under the cate­gory of “uncon­nec­ted”, their visi­ons, aspi­ra­ti­ons and crea­tive poten­tial are invi­si­ble. Since a femi­nist pers­pec­tive plays with diffe­rent modes of being, it may help to ques­tion the basis of know­ledge and subject posi­ti­ons that were/are seen in one-dimen­si­o­nal binary oppo­si­tion in commu­ni­ties, and help to note the contra­dic­ti­ons, tensi­ons and ambi­va­lence that charac­te­rise diffe­rent commu­ni­ties, groups and subjects in tech­no­logy initi­a­ti­ves.

On this basis, we present ongoing expe­ri­en­ces in Brazil – Rede Base Comum, Fuxico and Radia Pankaru – all auto­no­mous networks that are challen­ging andro­cen­trism and new forms of colo­ni­a­lism or exploi­ta­tion at the very local level. We also advo­cate that alli­an­ces between multi­ple groups can be expan­ded and tech­no­lo­gies can be re-appro­pri­a­ted respec­ting local speci­fi­ci­ties and the diffe­rent means by which commu­ni­ties arti­cu­late their expe­ri­en­ces, without placing tech­ni­cal exper­tise above all other kinds of know­ledge.

A claim for hete­ro­ge­neity

There is a common tendency among “experts” to use the term “last billion” to homo­ge­nise those who lack inter­net and mobile phone access. Such narra­ti­ves imagine tech­no­logy as moving not only “from the West to the rest”, but from the urban to the rural, from the cosmo­po­li­tan to the local, and from the globally networ­ked to the remo­tely discon­nec­ted. Under such a framing the notion that cultu­rally and geograp­hi­cally perip­he­ral sites are in defi­ni­tive need of “magi­cal” solu­ti­ons is implied.

This parti­cu­lar view can emerge even in acti­vism or free soft­ware and open tech­no­logy envi­ron­ments, where hege­mo­nic narra­ti­ves on networks are often natu­ra­li­sed and presen­ted as univer­sal to the detri­ment of alre­ady exis­ting expe­ri­en­ces and local ways of bonding. In this broa­der context, it is impor­tant to think over the risk of using the term “commu­nity” as a simple label that not only overs­ha­dows the recog­ni­tion of local tech­no­lo­gies and network alter­na­ti­ves, but also rein­for­ces the lack of respect for the voices of those silen­ced within a collec­tive expe­ri­ence. In order to avoid this risk, we unders­tand it is neces­sary to consi­der multi­ple voices and inter­nal inequa­li­ties in commu­nity-based projects, which should impact on methods, time plan­ning and espe­ci­ally on the dyna­mics of project imple­men­ta­tion.

The lack of consi­de­ra­tion of these aspects often makes the evalu­a­tion of the achi­e­ve­ments of a commu­nity network diffi­cult, or even leads us to measure its success mainly by the number of nodes it connects. In this sense, the pres­sure for scaling up commu­nity networks may, for exam­ple, run over latent conflicts on gender-rela­ted aspects and under­mine efforts to break down hierar­chi­cal autho­rity struc­tu­res where diffe­rence between clas­ses, ethnic groups, races and experts and non-experts beco­mes inequa­lity. It may also reduce the time requi­red to mature social ties and make a commu­nity network more bold and diverse. In addi­tion, there is a risk of inter­net access provi­sion and network stabi­li­sa­tion being consi­de­red the primary concern, without any consi­de­ra­tion regar­ding the power dispu­tes over its stan­dards, proto­cols, soft­ware and infras­truc­ture design. [2] In many cases, connec­tion is seen as the most impor­tant goal to be achi­e­ved in a whole project, instead of one among many others, neglec­ting discus­si­ons and propo­sals that could be carried out from more inter­sec­ti­o­nal pers­pec­ti­ves.

At the end of the day, we often face the absence of acti­ons desig­ned to acti­vely make these spaces (physi­cal or digi­tal) more welco­ming and safe for women – for exam­ple, the crea­tion of daycare faci­li­ties in spaces of infras­truc­ture design and deploy­ment; the imple­men­ta­tion of affir­ma­tive action to build more repre­sen­ta­tive and less power-concen­tra­ted network and commu­nity manage­ment struc­tu­res; a collec­tive agre­e­ment on an anti-harass­ment and non-discri­mi­na­tory policy; or even the aware­ness of the poten­tial need to remove inti­mate content disclo­sed without consent or misogy­nist content from commu­nity servers. All this is reve­a­ling of how even collec­tive initi­a­ti­ves some­ti­mes are desig­ned in such a gene­ra­li­sed way that they dismiss the poten­tial offe­red by an inter­sec­ti­o­nal frame­work with all its comple­xity, mobi­lity, and unti­ring poli­ti­cal possi­bi­li­ties, and with no consi­de­ra­tion for struc­tu­ral violence and discri­mi­na­tion.

It is not surpri­sing that some initi­a­ti­ves thought up by white, cis, [3] non-poor men, who are dispro­por­ti­o­na­tely repre­sen­ted in many deci­sion-making spaces, are loaded with assump­ti­ons and ideo­lo­gi­cal baggage, and do not contem­plate issues such as those menti­o­ned above, even in the field of open and free/libre tech­no­lo­gies, when those needs are not part of their universe and daily life. Further­more, the choi­ces that were made consi­de­ring this certain group’s needs and concerns – which will not be the same for all the parti­ci­pants in any network – are often not presen­ted as one of the possi­ble alter­na­ti­ves, but are hidden under an appe­a­rance of “ready-made solu­ti­ons”. This kind of expe­ri­ence can rein­force not only the natu­ra­li­sa­tion of inequa­li­ties, but also, as poin­ted out in vari­ous femi­nists lite­ra­tu­res, [4] rein­force a colo­ni­a­list and proble­ma­tic heri­tage through the univer­sa­li­sa­tion of a parti­cu­lar and privi­le­ged condi­tion (and the choice of a privi­le­ged narra­tive, which like its formu­la­tor is seen as univer­sal and, there­fore, capa­ble of dealing with all inequa­li­ties at once).

Consi­de­ring this assump­tion, the discus­si­ons aimed at making collec­tive spaces and infras­truc­ture designs more “on the ground”, welcome and suppor­tive to diffe­rent people and their values and prac­ti­ces, are many times percei­ved as a waste of time or a secon­dary item on the imple­men­ta­tion agenda. All this may foster the feeling that certain spaces are not suppo­sed to be occu­pied by women, or that certain kinds of know­ledge cannot be consi­de­red tech­no­lo­gies, or even the notion that exter­nal experts will always have better answers to commu­nity problems than the commu­nity members them­sel­ves. 

The Brazi­lian expe­ri­en­ces we will address exem­plify how the presence and active parti­ci­pa­tion of diverse women, inclu­ding indi­ge­nous women, LGBTQ people, commu­nity leaders living in the perip­hery of urban centres and in rural villa­ges, femi­nists, tech acti­vists and NGO parti­ci­pants, impact on the orga­ni­sa­tion of prac­ti­ces, acti­vi­ties and spaces of power where they are mostly thought of as hege­mo­nic subjects. 

In our exam­ples: 

• The expe­ri­en­ces involve diverse women in the forma­tion of infras­truc­tu­res and networks, there­fore encom­pas­sing both gender and tech­no­logy issues.
• Parti­ci­pants beli­eve in the impor­tance of buil­ding both online and offline local networks.
• Parti­ci­pants see as proble­ma­tic ready-made and easily presen­ted solu­ti­ons (with English often the embed­ded language of instruc­tion and imple­men­ta­tion), as well as hierar­chi­cal know­ledge arran­ge­ments, poin­ting out that expe­ri­en­ces with any kind of tech­no­logy should be desig­ned to value local exper­tise, support lear­ning proces­ses, seek diver­sity and dialo­gue with the local context and, through doing this, entrench parti­ci­pants’ auto­nomy.
• The expe­ri­en­ces help us rethink our methods and prac­ti­ces, disrup­ting natu­ra­li­sed assump­ti­ons that are built upon the invi­si­bi­lity of diffe­rent groups and tradi­ti­o­nal know­led­ges, [5] which have been suppor­ting commu­nity orga­ni­sa­tion and sustai­na­bi­lity concur­rently with or even before digi­tal tech­no­lo­gi­cal know­ledge. 

The purpose here is not to present these expe­ri­en­ces as a solu­tion to the diver­sity problem, but to reflect on how they break down the invi­si­bi­lity of both local infras­truc­ture rela­ti­ons and social inequa­li­ties, [6] high­ligh­ting local know­led­ges and prac­ti­ces and propo­sing new social alli­an­ces. We beli­eve these expe­ri­en­ces can help us to move towards the deco­lo­ni­sa­tion of our tech­no­lo­gi­cal imagi­nary. In this regard, we unders­tand tech­no­logy in a broa­der pers­pec­tive. As one co-author to this report once defi­ned it: “[B]eing, living, loving, suffe­ring, resis­ting, orga­ni­sing, cooking… all are ances­tral forms of tech­no­logy, ” and the infras­truc­tu­res are “the elements that make tech­no­lo­gies operate so power­fully.” [7]

We also share Sophie Toupin and Alexan­dra Hache’s percep­tion that:

One of the main cons­ti­tu­tive elements of femi­nist auto­no­mous infras­truc­tu­res lies in the concept of self-orga­ni­sa­tion alre­ady prac­ti­sed by many social move­ments that unders­tand the ques­tion of auto­nomy as a desire for free­dom, self-valo­ri­sa­tion and mutual aid. In addi­tion, we unders­tand the term tech­no­lo­gi­cal infras­truc­ture in an expan­sive way, encom­pas­sing hard­ware, soft­ware and appli­ca­ti­ons, but also parti­ci­pa­tory design, safe spaces and social soli­da­ri­ties. [8]

Rede Base Comum, a local network to act on our living areas

Rede Base Comum (Common Base Network in a free trans­la­tion from Portu­guese) is an urban commu­nity network in the district of Jardim São Luiz, loca­ted in the south of São Paulo. It is a local mesh network currently mana­ged by the NGO Casa dos Meni­nos. [9] Although this is not a femi­nist network by defi­ni­tion nor a collec­tive that orga­ni­ses itself from a gender pers­pec­tive, it was the women from the commu­nity that mana­ged the entire process of its imple­men­ta­tion and are now in charge of its main­te­nance.

The network was born in 2010 with the objec­tive of crea­ting a common space for resi­dents to gather and learn from know­ledge exchan­ges and to share local resour­ces. It was also desig­ned to improve the terri­tory’s [10] appro­pri­a­tion of tech­no­logy while crea­ting a sense of commu­nity in a densely popu­la­ted city. Inspi­red by the ideas of Brazi­lian geograp­her Milton Santos, the physi­cal local network is seen as an expe­ri­ence that can help locals amplify the impact of poli­ti­cal action in their resi­den­tial areas, rede­fi­ning the compo­si­tion of their imme­di­ate terri­tory into smaller, deli­mi­ted areas where resi­dents circu­late, inter­act and modify collec­tive spaces, such as scho­ols, health units, local markets and others. The network was also built with the pros­pect of crea­ting a new culture, based on colla­bo­ra­tion, soli­da­rity and local exchange prac­ti­ces, [11] challen­ging the pre-esta­blis­hed culture of indi­vi­du­a­lism and compe­ti­tion in our soci­ety.

It is note­wor­thy that the exis­tence of a commu­nity network in the terri­tory prece­ded in an “analo­gi­cal way” the mesh network set up by Rede Base Comum, built after resi­dents mobi­li­sed for the “Daycare Centres for All” protests in 2008. Back then, we orga­ni­sed field work to gather infor­ma­tion on the lack of daycare faci­li­ties in São Paulo, combi­ned with geo-refe­ren­cing tools, which showed the commu­nity, espe­ci­ally mothers, that a large number of chil­dren without daycare access in São Paulo were from their area.

The lack of daycare faci­li­ties in São Paulo could give one a feeling of impo­tence: offi­cial numbers indi­ca­ted more than 100,000 chil­dren without daycare in the city at that time. Nonet­he­less, the geo-refe­ren­ced infor­ma­tion unified the mothers and helped them orga­nise and inter­vene with a more concrete demand. As a result, the data collec­ted in the field work enabled a local move­ment that resul­ted in two new daycare units in the neigh­bour­hood, inau­gu­ra­ted in 2011 and 2013.

Social mobi­li­sa­tion coor­di­na­ted by the commu­nity prece­ded the orga­ni­sa­tion of a local digi­tal network, helping us to think of a mesh network as a way of suppor­ting impor­tant inter­ac­ti­ons alre­ady exis­ting between resi­dents and rela­ting to their reality and local needs. In this process, a series of meetings and discus­si­ons were carried out to define the opera­tion and main­te­nance of the network struc­ture. In a demons­tra­tion on how tech­no­logy can support a non-hege­mo­nic vision, it was deci­ded that in order to maxi­mise auto­nomy, the network should be mana­ged by the commu­nity itself, inclu­ding when it came to defi­ning inter­nal policy and content issues. Here when we talk about the “commu­nity”, we are also talking about oursel­ves, and women who live in the neigh­bour­hood and were alre­ady bonded in “offline” social networks.

Never­the­less, when our group of women looked for network infras­truc­ture expe­ri­en­ces and tech­ni­cal exper­tise, we faced an unwel­co­ming scena­rio: the complete absence of trai­ning spaces on infor­ma­tion and commu­ni­ca­ti­ons tech­no­lo­gies (ICTs) in our own neigh­bour­hood, inclu­ding for-profit tech­ni­cal scho­ols – which led us to conclude that not every area in the city is seen as a place of inter­est regar­ding tech­no­lo­gi­cal exper­tise. Clearly, this lack of oppor­tu­ni­ties is a reflec­tion of social and geograp­hi­cal tensi­ons that under­line inter­net infras­truc­tu­res – the place where people live and their social class reso­nate in the level of their access to infor­ma­tion and know­ledge.

As a conse­quence, the team that today mana­ges the network sought part­ners­hips with other groups invol­ved in digi­tal culture. Howe­ver, even in the free/libre and open tech­no­lo­gies acti­vist field, our first impres­sion was that this space did not belong to us, as we faced a predo­mi­nance of white males and only a few women working with infras­truc­ture and free networks. Further­more, these part­ners­hips were some­ti­mes focu­sed on teaching parti­cu­lar content or tech­ni­ques in a short period of time – a dyna­mic in which there was little space to connect all that “exter­nal” exper­tise to local aspects.

One of these part­ners­hips, howe­ver, occur­red diffe­rently. During a course on commu­nity networks desig­ned for women orga­ni­sed in 2017 by Vede­tas – who had set up a femi­nist server inten­ded to support femi­nist groups in their online acti­vi­ties, to incre­ase women’s secu­rity and auto­nomy and to build femi­nist tech­no­lo­gies [12] – we disco­ve­red that femi­nist prac­ti­ces could influ­ence lear­ning and know­ledge produc­tion. Once we mana­ged to find out about spaces where diverse women were invol­ved with the cons­truc­tion and modi­fi­ca­tion of network infras­truc­ture, we could observe the diffe­ren­ces in the teaching methods and in the envi­ron­ment, and reali­sed we should take into consi­de­ra­tion what we were produ­cing and thin­king for Rede Base Comum in order to meet our needs when buil­ding our own infras­truc­ture.

One aspect that drew our atten­tion was that the part­ners who work with femi­nist infras­truc­tu­res consi­der the reality of “on the ground” prac­ti­ces of the local popu­la­tion when intro­du­cing digi­tal tools. In other groups that we had contact with, it was always stated as an impe­ra­tive and gene­ral truth that it was impor­tant to use free soft­ware in commu­nity networks, for exam­ple. We know the poli­ti­cal impor­tance of its use; howe­ver, we cannot always act in ideal condi­ti­ons and in this case speci­fi­cally most of the resi­dents in our terri­tory were still more fami­liar with the use of propri­e­tary soft­ware than with free soft­ware inter­fa­ces. In their very first contact, a digi­tal envi­ron­ment that was too diffe­rent could divert people from the use of the local network.

In the femi­nist infras­truc­ture works­hops we parti­ci­pa­ted in, part­ners presen­ted the use of both propri­e­tary and free tools in para­llel, which helped us to unders­tand in prac­tice the diffe­ren­ces that make the use of free soft­ware so impor­tant. This simul­ta­ne­ous use served as a period of adap­ta­tion to a free soft­ware envi­ron­ment. This has helped us to adapt the works­hops we have conduc­ted in Rede Base Comum, in which we apply a simi­lar metho­do­logy, intro­du­cing free tools in a more prac­ti­cal, gradual way and looking at their diffe­ren­ces in rela­tion to the propri­e­tary soft­ware. As a result, digi­tal tools were presen­ted as a popu­lar resource and not a tool desig­ned by and for experts.

Anot­her diffi­culty we had was in rela­tion to the appli­ca­tion of ready-made solu­ti­ons. In some part­ners­hips with digi­tal culture groups there was an insis­tence on using alre­ady deve­lo­ped tools and “plug-and-play” solu­ti­ons in our network. We know that this is the result of a posi­tive inten­tion and effort to “faci­li­tate” the life of those who are star­ting their projects with commu­nity networks, but in addi­tion to using plat­forms and tools alre­ady deve­lo­ped elsew­here, we have always affir­med that it would be impor­tant for us to learn how to deve­lop some of our own tools. We had long conver­sa­ti­ons with some part­ners in this regard, but they did not unders­tand our need to appro­pri­ate this know­ledge. Femi­nist groups had a better unders­tan­ding of this need, as the impor­tance of auto­nomy is a promi­nent part of their discus­si­ons. Today we are desig­ning works­hops and trai­ning projects which aim to have women program­mers and deve­lo­pers in our own group and terri­tory buil­ding some appli­ca­ti­ons for our network locally. We consi­der this to be one of the main prio­ri­ties in the orga­ni­sa­tion of our time, resour­ces and projects, even if this means slowing down the expan­sion of our network to neigh­bour­hood areas.

Fuxico: Weaving connec­ti­ons beyond the inter­net

Fuxico[13] is an auto­no­mous and porta­ble device made by Brazi­lian women to connect people who are present in the same physi­cal space in order to promote content, exchange expe­ri­en­ces, and foster colla­bo­ra­tion. It crea­tes a wire­less network – discon­nec­ted from the inter­net – with the objec­tive of sharing digi­tal content in real time and in a comple­tely anony­mous way.

Moti­va­ted by the desire to explore the theme of auto­no­mous femi­nist networks, in 2017 a group of four female hackers from Brazil and Mexico coming from diffe­rent femi­nist social infras­truc­ture and tech­no­logy initi­a­ti­ves – Kéfir, [14] Peri­fé­ri­cas[15] and Vede­tas – met at the AWID inter­na­ti­o­nal forum. [16] This parti­ci­pa­tion resul­ted in a one-year project with the purpose of explo­ring what was mapped as four points of tension in femi­nist infras­truc­tu­res: “consent and inti­macy”, “situ­a­ted know­ledge and memory”, “seeded connec­ted­ness” and “auto­no­mous deci­sion making”. [17]

Through this project we worked with 230 women [18] from events and works­hops we faci­li­ta­ted in São Paulo and Salva­dor, and also agri­cul­tu­rists from Vale do Ribeira and rural artists at Encon­trADA, [19] a self-orga­ni­sed event carried in the São Paulo country­side. The work itself had very diverse appro­a­ches, such as setting up tempo­rary prototy­pes of auto­no­mous mesh networks in events, to presen­ta­ti­ons, talks and longer cour­ses on the subject of auto­no­mous infras­truc­tu­res.

During the project we reali­sed that merely a theo­re­ti­cal presen­ta­tion about the theme or prac­tice with routers and anten­nas was not enough to deepen the discus­sion about the possi­bi­li­ties of women using and sharing local servi­ces. In some of the field expe­ri­en­ces, the very idea of digi­tal commu­ni­ca­tion was thought of as only being about the inter­net, somet­hing that this initi­a­tive sought to decons­truct. [20]

We then deci­ded to take a concrete exam­ple, choose some tech­no­logy that the parti­ci­pants could touch and expe­ri­ence, but that was not an unori­gi­nal ready-made solu­tion or an impor­ted tool. Being an exter­nal solu­tion – as menti­o­ned, in English by default – and with little regi­o­na­li­sa­tion in the “user expe­ri­ence” design and objec­ti­ves, this impo­si­tion without esta­blis­hing any dialo­gue with parti­ci­pants on the local context and on their unders­tan­dings about tech­no­logy usually acts against commu­nity and indi­vi­dual auto­nomy in our expe­ri­ence. Even free soft­ware with its solid goals of suppor­ting civil soci­ety and the free demo­cra­tic access to know­ledge, like Medi­a­Wiki [21] or Pira­te­Box, [22] if applied in an unchan­ged and unre­flec­tive way to any context, would appear as a foreign tech­no­logy and only inten­sify the distance women feel in anyt­hing rela­ted to tech­no­logy.

There­fore, we chose to work with a heavily custo­mi­sed version of Pira­te­Box, a 2011 free soft­ware project defi­ned as a “DIY [do-it-your­self] anony­mous offline file-sharing and commu­ni­ca­ti­ons system built with free soft­ware and inex­pen­sive off-the-shelf hard­ware". [23] Pira­te­Box is an opera­ting system for Rasp­berry Pi, [24] which crea­tes a wire­less network – not connec­ted to the inter­net – to exchange digi­tal content such as images, videos, audios, docu­ments and conver­sa­ti­ons, prio­ri­ti­sing anony­mity.

Initi­ally the inter­face was trans­la­ted into Portu­guese and the pira­te’s visual iden­tity that is part of the product was repla­ced by an image that served as a locally meaning­ful analogy. The inten­tion was to give meaning to the expe­ri­ence by brin­ging elements that were part of the women’s daily life: for farmers, we used the idea of “seeding” – a space for exchan­ging indi­ge­nous seeds, where the content exchan­ged could, by analogy, multiply as “Creole seed”. [25] For women on the outs­kirts of Bahia state, we used the name of a little flower called fuxico,[26] which is an image used in a very common craft tech­ni­que from the inte­rior of the Brazi­lian Northe­ast that is more than 150 years old. By using pieces of fabric left over from sewing, the women create indi­vi­dual pieces that look like fuxico. They then sew nume­rous fuxi­cos toget­her, produ­cing clot­hes, deco­ra­ti­ons, table­cloths and bed covers. We called this loca­li­sed solu­tion “Fuxico”, allu­ding to other tech­ni­ques deve­lo­ped by Brazi­lian women.

These analo­gies seek not only to create a sense of belon­ging in the parti­ci­pant expe­ri­ence, but to give a new signi­fi­cance to what we unders­tand by tech­no­logy. Women often do not see tech­no­logy as a “female thing” and all things consi­de­red, “femi­nine”, in our culture, is often clas­si­fied as anyt­hing but tech­no­logy. One of our goals as femi­nist hackers is to change this corre­la­tion and ques­tion the poli­tics of such clas­si­fi­ca­ti­ons and the scale of power they repre­sent. As the neuros­ci­en­tist and artist Chris­tine Liu claims: “Knit­ting is program­ming. Sewing is engi­ne­e­ring. Baking is chemistry. Women have been STEM [science, tech­no­logy, engi­ne­e­ring and mathe­ma­tics] pione­ers longer than they’ve recei­ved credit for.” [27]

The use of metap­hors and analo­gies expres­sed here reflect the view of Diana Maffia [28] who, in formu­la­ting her criti­que of the hege­mo­nic scien­ces, reve­als that the produc­tion of “truths” is based on false noti­ons of objec­ti­vity and neutra­lity, which require the use of lite­ral language and the exclu­sion of emotion. In doing so, metap­hors, far from having value for know­ledge, create obsta­cles to meaning. What was expe­ri­en­ced with these women is exac­tly the oppo­site: the metap­hors are valued and build bridges – often they are perfec­ted by the parti­ci­pants, who also formu­late their own compa­ri­sons to test the know­ledge lear­ned. The truth here appe­ars, there­fore, in the sense propo­sed by Maffia, that what is legi­ti­ma­ted by diffe­rent pers­pec­ti­ves will be true (in this case, from the pers­pec­tive of the women who atten­ded the acti­vi­ties) – it crea­tes meaning that is not finis­hed, but which can be rene­go­ti­a­ted. The Fuxico project is a collec­tive reflec­tion on the expres­si­ons and wishes of Brazi­lian women and was desig­ned to connect people present in the same physi­cal space, such as femi­nist events and collec­tive venues – but not limi­ted to them. In addi­tion to the origi­nal Pira­te­Box featu­res adap­ted to this context, Fuxico inclu­des by default educa­ti­o­nal content about femi­nism, auto­nomy, tech­no­logy and stories about women. The device also inclu­des a manual on femi­nist digi­tal secu­rity tech­ni­ques and prac­ti­ces – since any digi­tal expe­ri­ence that seeks to include women and other social mino­ri­ties must consi­der that discri­mi­na­tory violence is struc­tu­ral and could always occur in both online and offline spaces.

The origi­nal Pira­te­Box project, as many free soft­ware projects do, focu­ses a lot on trust, anony­mity and the absence of control or censors­hip mecha­nisms. As femi­nists we worry that the lack of built-in func­ti­o­na­li­ties to delete content that proves to be violent or haras­sing is a flaw that will distance women and other social mino­ri­ties in fear of online violence. In the context of digi­tal terri­to­ries as facets of real-life terri­to­ries, cryp­to­graphy and the possi­bi­lity of adding secu­rity layers to speci­fic spaces and files, and the ability to choose who you want to share content with, is a form of resis­tance. The guide [29] we share by default inclu­des infor­ma­tion on holis­tic tactics and alter­na­tive digi­tal secu­rity soft­ware that the users should fami­li­a­rise them­sel­ves with, but in the future we wish to add media gover­nance and cryp­to­graphy featu­res built into the Fuxico inter­face.

In retros­pect, this project encou­ra­ged us to work on the issue of auto­no­mous networks from a diffe­rent pers­pec­tive. The aspects that unite and create networks, as well as common narra­ti­ves and expe­ri­en­ces, were more impor­tant than the range a certain kind of tech­no­logy had. Rather than thin­king about the exten­sion and quan­tity of nodes, we reverse engi­ne­e­red that logic by working in the smallest as possi­ble sphere: a single router – a single box with the poten­tial to bring toget­her narra­ti­ves, ideas, know­ledge and desi­res. Once this common terri­tory is esta­blis­hed, the inten­tion of the project is to encou­rage women to gradu­ally expand these connec­ti­ons, adding routers and anten­nas as far as it will make sense for them.

Rádia Mulhe­res Panka­raru

The indi­ge­nous terri­tory of Panka­raru is loca­ted in the back­wo­ods of the state of Pernam­buco, in the Northe­ast region of Brazil. The popu­la­tion that lives in the terri­tory is appro­xi­ma­tely 7,200 and although their land was demar­ca­ted in 1942 they still fight against outsi­ders to make them leave the terri­tory and to have their land rights ensu­red. [30]

Rádia Mulhe­res Panka­raru (which means Panka­raru Women’s Radia) [31] was star­ted in Janu­ary 2018 and was the result of the effort of many women, but mostly the women asso­ci­a­ted with AMIGP ( Asso­ci­ação Mulhe­res Indí­ge­nas Guer­rei­ras Panka­raru, which means Panka­raru Indi­ge­nous Women Warri­ors’ Asso­ci­a­tion), a couple of radio lovers, [32] and Thydewá, [33] a part­ner NGO. The initial idea was to orga­nise a works­hop on basic elec­tro­nics with women, suppor­ted by Fundo ELAS, a local fund for women’s rights. [34] Howe­ver, after talking with them we disco­ve­red that they had an old dream of having a local low-power FM (LPFM) radio station. So we arran­ged for expe­ri­men­tal low-power equip­ment and provi­ded works­hops on basic main­te­nance and audio content produc­tion using free/libre and open source soft­ware (FLOSS).

Source: Asso­ci­ação de Mulhe­res Indí­ge­nas Guer­rei­ras Panka­raru – Pernam­buco, Brazil

The signal reaches almost the whole indi­ge­nous terri­tory and the radia is open for women’s parti­ci­pa­tion only (they are still thin­king about how men can parti­ci­pate without taking the action out of women’s hands). Before the radia, the only two FM radio stati­ons that could be heard in the terri­tory were commer­cial stati­ons from cities loca­ted in the surroun­dings. The day after the radia did its first broad­cast, there were people knoc­king on the door of one of the women’s homes at 7 a.m. asking what time it was going back on air!

AMIGP is an asso­ci­a­tion of women that fights against domes­tic and sexual violence and advo­ca­tes for sexual and repro­duc­tive rights for indi­ge­nous women. The asso­ci­a­tion is mostly compri­sed of indi­ge­nous teachers and local arti­cu­la­tors, [35] as well as home­ma­kers and students. They reno­va­ted a small room at the back of the asso­ci­a­ti­on’s head­quar­ters, where the radia is currently loca­ted. In May, anot­her project came to the space, provi­ding a FLOSS labo­ra­tory for young women.

Although the radia project is still new and it is hard to measure its achi­e­ve­ments regar­ding social change, it is unde­ni­a­ble that the commu­nity was strengt­he­ned by the LPFM radia and its voice was ampli­fied. We beli­eve that the radia, where content produc­tion is shared, strengt­hens commu­nity bonds and helps with collec­tive thin­king. Because of this, the dyna­mics of an LPFM radio are more collec­tive than the use of the inter­net on indi­vi­dual devi­ces, and can be an ally when we think of the sustai­na­bi­lity of collec­tive rela­ti­ons, repre­sen­ting a broa­der view on commu­nity networks and auto­no­mous infras­truc­ture. We beli­eve that an LPFM radio is, in this context, a form of commu­nity network, meaning that it provi­des a way of commu­ni­ca­tion and exchan­ging thoughts and ideas. The inter­net connec­tion in the indi­ge­nous terri­tory is restric­ted (there is sate­llite only, and it is expen­sive and not reli­a­ble), so having a local radio station was a speci­fic choice that was made consi­de­ring the low budget of the project. At the same time, the commu­ni­ca­tion problems to be addres­sed in the Panka­raru commu­nity were better atten­ded to by broad­cas­ting, being able to amplify the voices of the commu­nity leaders that are figh­ting for indi­ge­nous women’s rights

Addi­ti­o­nally, an LPFM radia enti­rely led by indi­ge­nous women is unpre­ce­den­ted in Brazil, a country that strug­gles with concen­tra­ted manage­ment and patri­ar­chal laws when it comes to radio spec­trum. The concen­tra­tion of radio spec­trum use in Brazil is a histo­ri­cal issue and, although there is a law regu­la­ting licen­ces for commu­nity radio networks, it is very diffi­cult to get a conces­sion due to bure­au­cracy. Sadly, the tech­ni­cal restric­ti­ons impo­sed by the conces­si­ons also end up lowe­ring the poten­tial of setting up a commu­nity radio initi­a­tive. The present law esta­blis­hes that only one frequency is avai­la­ble for commu­nity radios to use nati­o­nally – and this remains the case regard­less of the size of the city and its popu­la­tion. This is also limi­ted to 25W of power or a maxi­mum 1 km of range, which is really low, espe­ci­ally consi­de­ring big cities with tall buil­dings and rural areas that are vast. [36] There is also a need for a legal entity to apply for a conces­sion, and due to the fact that there is only one frequency avai­la­ble, commu­ni­ties within the same range of 4 km become compe­ti­tors for the same conces­sion.

There are many other exam­ples of how the hindran­ces impo­sed on commu­nity radio in Brazil impact on commu­ni­ties. The net result is that more radio stati­ons opera­ting without conces­si­ons are closed down every year than new conces­si­ons gran­ted, showing that the level of access to a conces­sion falls far short of atten­ding to people’s demands.

Source: Asso­ci­ação de Mulhe­res Indí­ge­nas Guer­rei­ras Panka­raru – Pernam­buco, Brazil

The diffi­cul­ties to access the spec­trum are ampli­fied when looked at through an inter­sec­ti­o­nal lens, meaning that even among the groups that have been awar­ded conces­si­ons, women and mino­ri­ties are still margi­na­li­sed and occupy secon­dary posts. It is evident that in most commu­nity radio stati­ons in Brazil, women still occupy posi­ti­ons rela­ted to secre­ta­rial duties and clea­ning, and are really rare in posi­ti­ons of leaders­hip and tech­ni­cal manage­ment. The fact is that the whole deci­sion-making process of the allo­ca­tion of the radio spec­trum is still prac­ti­cally all male driven, from legis­la­tors to regu­la­tors, leading to the lack of diverse and femi­nist pers­pec­ti­ves regar­ding the possi­bi­li­ties of use of spec­trum as a resource. This patri­ar­chal domain makes spec­trum access diffi­cult and hinders the incre­ase of diver­sity in commu­nity radio networks. Sadly, because of the facts menti­o­ned above, nowa­days LPFM radio stati­ons in Brazil are mostly used by evan­ge­li­cal groups with reli­gi­ous and econo­mic purpo­ses rather than cultu­ral and poli­ti­cal objec­ti­ves. New kinds of tech­no­lo­gies that use radio spec­trum and could decre­ase social gaps are not being explo­red or are even under­mi­ned in Brazil. This is the case of digi­tal radio, which can enlarge the access to frequen­cies and even send other kinds of data like images and videos, in addi­tion to audio. Digi­tal radio could be a commu­ni­ca­ti­o­nal solu­tion for commu­ni­ties in remote areas that lack access to basic servi­ces and the inter­net.

To desta­bi­lise, but not conclude

More than produ­cing defi­ni­tive answers, we expect with this report to create desta­bi­li­sa­ti­ons that enable us to rethink commu­nity networks, and to challenge the current inter­net world order by follo­wing a diffe­rent method, consi­de­ring the local context and demands from a femi­nist pers­pec­tive on infras­truc­ture.

Shared expe­ri­en­ces in proces­ses of buil­ding and main­tai­ning commu­nity networks, or other collec­tive forms of ICTs, have the poten­tial to challenge the way in which broad­band, wire­less or radio connec­ti­ons have been imple­men­ted in rural areas and the perip­hery of urban centres. Usually these expe­ri­en­ces either attend exclu­si­vely to commer­cial inter­ests or aim at simply, quickly solving the problem of the digi­tal divide through inter­net access.

It is unques­ti­o­na­ble that the expe­ri­ence of commu­nity networks has the poten­tial to address the invi­si­bi­lity of infras­truc­tu­res. [37] At the moment these networks usually occupy an abstract place in our imagi­nary but their impact on our day-to-day lives and the power rela­ti­ons they esta­blish gain a bolder mate­ri­a­lity. From our pers­pec­tive, commu­nity and auto­no­mous networks are not limi­ted to a short­cut for deve­lop­ment or a “bread­crumb” offe­red to “disad­van­ta­ged” groups to access the inter­net. They repre­sent a possi­bi­lity of esta­blis­hing connec­ti­ons based on grass­ro­ots rules and in which tech­no­lo­gies can be re-appro­pri­a­ted, or crea­ti­vely used or repur­po­sed.

Howe­ver, it must be noted that any process of inter­ac­tion with tech­no­logy carries cons­traints and conven­ti­ons that may repro­duce hierar­chies and inequa­li­ties even in collec­tive proces­ses. In other words, even commu­nity networks can repro­duce norms that alie­nate women and non-hege­mo­nic groups from spaces of power and auto­nomy. In addi­tion, some collec­tive expe­ri­en­ces based on “one-weekend works­hops” and flash projects of network imple­men­ta­tion run the risk of being deta­ched from local demands, failing to build long-term auto­nomy and strengt­hen commu­ni­ties.

In this broa­der context, the presence of diverse women in the design and manage­ment of infras­truc­ture and networks – in addi­tion to making these spaces more demo­cra­tic – seems essen­tial to challenge the andro­cen­trism and colo­ni­a­lism that conta­mi­nate our know­ledge and prac­ti­ces in the global South. In the expe­ri­en­ces we quickly presen­ted here, the presence of diverse groups and the absence of pres­sure for a quick incor­po­ra­tion of a certain tech­ni­que or for network expan­sion are in line with the time needed to mix know­led­ges and to mature human connec­ti­ons towards making our networks more commu­ni­ta­rian, free and auto­no­mous.

The presence of diverse women is funda­men­tal on seve­ral levels, from the imple­men­ta­tion and manage­ment of a local network to insti­tu­ti­o­nal spaces of deci­sion making. The lack of popu­lar and commu­nity access to the radio spec­trum, for exam­ple, is anot­her impor­tant commu­nity network issue that it is clearly a matter of human rights and should be addres­sed care­fully by poli­ti­ci­ans and legis­la­tors, and hope­fully in the most inter­sec­ti­o­nal way possi­ble. The digi­ta­li­sa­tion of the FM signal could be a way of broa­de­ning access to this common good, consi­de­ring that the digi­tal signal occu­pies less band­width than an analo­gue signal, and there is tech­no­logy to make better and more dyna­mic use of spec­trum using soft­ware-defi­ned radio (SDR) and cogni­tive radio tech­no­lo­gies. Brazil, howe­ver, is far from digi­ta­li­sing the radio signal and promo­ting a more demo­cra­tic, less bure­au­cra­tic and profit-based model of access to the radio spec­trum.

Finally, as we have argued, we see evidence that mere access to new tech­no­logy could rein­force rather than reduce inequa­li­ties. This obser­va­tion seems impor­tant to break the invi­si­bi­lity not only of tech­no­lo­gi­cal infras­truc­ture, but also of the asym­me­tries of power that are clear from an inter­sec­ti­o­nal pers­pec­tive. This means propo­sing alli­an­ces that do not erase diffe­ren­ces, but instead value the power of diver­sity. It also means a commit­ment to an active effort to link digi­tal exper­tise to women’s diffe­rent grass­ro­ots tech­no­lo­gies and skills alre­ady in use, and to local daily life, aiming to create a welco­ming and safe envi­ron­ment for those who are outside the hege­mo­nic norm.

Foot­no­tes

[1] Kimber­lé Williams Crens­haw concep­tu­a­li­sed inter­sec­ti­o­na­lity to denote the vari­ous ways in which race and gender inter­act to shape the multi­ple dimen­si­ons of black women’s employ­ment expe­ri­en­ces. Although her theory has arou­sed contro­versy, Crens­haw helped to make visi­ble some of the dyna­mics of struc­tu­ral inter­sec­ti­o­na­lity and poin­ted out that people and groups expe­ri­ence the over­lap­ping of discri­mi­na­tory systems. She also poin­ted out the limits in iden­tity poli­tics, affir­ming that its problem «is not that it fails to trans­cend diffe­rence, as some critics charge, but rather the oppo­site – that it frequently confla­tes or igno­res intra group diffe­ren­ces.» For more infor­ma­tion, see: https://www.raci­a­le­quity­to­ols.org/resour­ce­fi­les/mapping-margins.pdf

[2] Vicen­tin, D. J. (2017). Inter­net Gover­nance, Infras­truc­ture and Resis­tance. lavits.org/wp-content/uplo­ads/2017/08/P8_Vicen­tin.pdf

[3] Accor­ding to the LGBTI+ Commu­ni­ca­tion Manual, “cis” (or cisgen­der) is the term used to describe people who are not trans­gen­der. It refers to indi­vi­du­als who iden­tify them­sel­ves, in all aspects, with the gender attri­bu­ted to them at birth. See: https://agen­ci­a­pa­tri­ci­a­gal­vao.org.br/wp-content/uplo­ads/2018/07/manual-comu­ni­ca­cao-LGBTI.pdf

[4] Some refe­ren­ces regar­ding this discus­sion are: Harding, S. (1998) ¿Existe un método femi­nista? In E. Bartra (Ed.), Deba­tes en torno a una meto­do­lo­gía femi­nist. Mexico City: Univer­si­dad Autó­noma Metro­po­li­tana-Unidad Xochi­milco; Hara­way, D. (1995). Sabe­res loca­li­za­dos: a ques­tão da ciên­cia para o femi­nismo e o privi­lé­gio da pers­pec­tiva parcial. Cader­nos Pagu, 5, 7–41; Rago, M. (1998). Epis­te­mo­lo­gia Femi­nista, Gênero e Histó­ria. In J. Pedro & M. Grossi (Eds.), Mascu­lino, Femi­nino, Plural. Flori­a­nó­po­lis: Ed. Mulhe­res; Ribeiro, D. (2017). O que é lugar de fala? Belo Hori­zonte: Letra­mento; Sarden­berg, C.(2002). Da Crítica Femi­nista à Ciên­cia a uma Ciên­cia Femi­nista? In A. A. Costa & C. Sarden­berg (Eds.), Femi­nismo, Ciên­cia e Tecno­lo­gia. Salva­dor: Rede Femi­nista Norte e Nord­este de Estu­dos e Pesquisa sobre Mulher e Relações de Gênero (REDOR), Núcleo de Estu­dos Inter­dis­ci­pli­na­res sobre a Mulher (NEIM), Univer­si­dade Fede­ral da Bahia.

[5] Although incor­rect from a strictly gram­ma­ti­cal view­po­int, the plural form “know­led­ges” is used to empha­sise the fact that there are multi­ple kinds of know­ledge.

[6] Oliveira, D. (2017). Commu­nity networks and invi­si­bi­lity regi­mes of infras­truc­tu­res and bodies. Paper presen­ted at LAVITS Inter­na­ti­o­nal Sympo­sium “Vigi­lan­cia, Demo­cra­cia y Priva­ci­dad en Amé­rica Latina: Vulne­ra­bi­li­da­des y resis­ten­cias”, Santi­ago, Chile, 29 Novem­ber-1 Decem­ber. lavits.org/wp-content/uplo­ads/2018/04/40-Débora-Prado-de-Oliveira.pdf

[7] Zano­lli, B. (2017). Podcast: Femi­nist spec­trum and infras­truc­ture. Gende­rIT.org. https://www.gende­rit.org/node/5029

[8] Toupin S., & Hache, A. (2015). Femi­nist auto­no­mous infras­truc­tu­res. In A. Finlay (Ed.), Global Infor­ma­tion Soci­ety Watch 2015: Sexual rights and the inter­net. APC and Hivos. https://www.giswatch.org/en/inter­net-rights/femi­nist-auto­no­mous-infras­truc­tu­res

[9] Casa dos Meni­nos is a social orga­ni­sa­tion foun­ded in 1962. Since 1999, it has carried out social, educa­ti­o­nal and cultu­ral acti­vi­ties and program­mes, using geo-refe­ren­cing tech­no­logy and web deve­lop­ment. The NGO’s target audi­ence is young people aged 13–29 years old and adults aged 40–75 years old, all resi­dents of the neigh­bour­hood of Jardim São Luiz, in the district of M’Boi Mirim, loca­ted in the sout­hern outs­kirts of the city of São Paulo.

[10] We unders­tand terri­tory as in Milton Santos’ work: “The terri­tory is the ground and the popu­la­tion, that is, an iden­tity, the fact and the feeling of belon­ging to what belongs to us. Terri­tory is the basis of labour acti­vi­ties, of resi­dence, of mate­rial and spiri­tual exchan­ges, and of life, upon which it also has influ­ence. When talking about terri­tory one must, there­fore, unders­tand that we are spea­king about terri­tory used by a popu­la­tion.” See Santos, M. (2003). Por outra globa­li­zação: do pensa­mento único à cons­ciên­cia univer­sal. Rio de Janeiro: Record.

[11] With the network we want to use and deve­lop appli­ca­ti­ons and webpa­ges that allow the commu­nity to share local resour­ces, from the exchange of local know­ledge, texts and audi­o­vi­sual content to open chan­nels for the promo­tion and orga­ni­sa­tion of shared physi­cal items among the local popu­la­tion, such as books and buil­ding mate­ri­als.

[12] https://vede­tas.org

[13] rede­au­to­no­ma­fe­mi­nista.org/fuxico

[14] https://kefir.red

[15] www.peri­fe­ri­cas.com.br

[16] AWID is an inter­na­ti­o­nal, femi­nist, members­hip orga­ni­sa­tion commit­ted to achi­e­ving gender equa­lity, sustai­na­ble deve­lop­ment and women’s human rights. https://www.awid.org

[17] These women hackers also explo­red the points of tension in femi­nist auto­no­mous infras­truc­tu­res at the 2017 Inter­net Free­dom Festi­val. See the event’s wiki at: https://inter­net­fre­e­dom­fes­ti­val.org/wiki/index.php/Getting_gender_inclu­sive_from_the_ground_to_the_cloud and the podcast “Femi­nist auto­no­mous infras­truc­ture: Tech­no­ma­gi­cal fires to warm your hearts” at Gende­rIT.org: https://www.gende­rit.org/node/4921

[18] At the first meeting, held in 2017, it was possi­ble to see that there is diver­sity among the parti­ci­pants: there are women of diffe­rent ages, most of them between 20 and 40 years old (there are no elderly women); there is racial diver­sity, espe­ci­ally among whites and blacks, and there are Brazi­li­ans with Asian ancestry who work with Asian femi­nism. People also come from diffe­rent areas of acti­vity: graf­fiti artists, desig­ners, lawyers, digi­tal marke­ting commu­ni­ca­tors, jour­na­lists, physi­cists, high school students, acade­mic rese­ar­chers, and femi­nist acti­vists from diffe­rent groups. They also come from diffe­rent places in Brazil: there are women from the city of São Paulo, from the inte­rior of the state of São Paulo, from Pará, Bahia, Pernam­buco – although most are living in São Paulo at the moment, even if tempo­ra­rily. Some are mothers, some not; there are cis and trans women, queer and non-binary people, hete­ro­se­xu­als, bise­xu­als and lesbi­ans. The concern with diver­sity is expres­sed not only in the compo­si­tion of the parti­ci­pants, but in the orga­ni­sa­ti­on’s efforts to try to anti­ci­pate demands to ensure that the space is really welco­ming for diffe­rent women. Before the course starts, for exam­ple, the orga­ni­sa­tion surveys the parti­ci­pants via email or telep­hone to map out demands for daycare, food aid and trans­por­ta­tion, and acces­si­bi­lity for people with disa­bi­li­ties.

[19] https://encon­trada.hotglue.me/?histo­rico

[20] There are, for exam­ple, other forms of digi­tal commu­ni­ca­tion that we call atten­tion to in our collec­tive, such as digi­tal tele­vi­sion and radio and intra­nets.

[21] https://www.medi­a­wiki.org/wiki/Medi­a­Wiki

[22] https://pira­te­box.cc

[23] Ibid.

[24] Accor­ding to the Rasp­berry Pi Foun­da­tion, the Rasp­berry Pi is an affor­da­ble and capa­ble little compu­ter, which can be used in elec­tro­nics projects and for many of the things that a desk­top PC does. https://www.rasp­berrypi.org

[25] The manual of femi­nist prac­ti­ces produ­ced in 2018 by SOF – a Brazi­lian femi­nist orga­ni­sa­tion – says: «Creole seeds are those grown and main­tai­ned by tradi­ti­o­nal peoples and commu­ni­ties throug­hout gene­ra­ti­ons, perpe­tu­a­ting the natu­ral wealth of our lands. Through agro-ecolo­gi­cal crops and seed exchan­ges, they remain alive.» This is an acti­vity of resis­tance in a country where the agri­bu­si­ness industry poses a threat to tradi­ti­o­nal ways of tending the soil and Brazi­lian people’s health as a whole. For more infor­ma­tion, see: https://www.hrw.org/pt/news/2018/07/20/320493

[26] For some exam­ples of fuxico, see: https://www.arte­sa­na­to­pas­so­a­pas­soja.com.br/arte­sa­na­tos-com-fuxico-passo-…

[27] https://twit­ter.com/chris­ti­ne­li­uart/status/856729454013366272

[28] Maffia, D. (2005). Epis­te­mo­lo­gía Femi­nista: por una inclu­sión de lo feme­nino en la cien­cia. In N. B. Graf & J. Flores (Eds.), Cien­cia, tecno­lo­gía y género en Ibero­a­mé­rica. Mexico DF: Univer­si­dad Autó­noma de México/Plaza y Valdés.

[29] The publi­ca­tion, called the Prac­ti­cal Guide to Stra­te­gies and Tactics for Femi­nist Digi­tal Secu­rity, aims to provide women with grea­ter auto­nomy and secu­rity on the inter­net by presen­ting stra­te­gies and tactics of digi­tal defence for femi­nists. The content is direc­ted to women in Latin America and was deve­lo­ped consi­de­ring diffe­rent women: blacks, trans, lesbi­ans, orga­ni­sed acti­vist move­ments of women or those who act indi­vi­du­ally in the network, whet­her from urban areas or rural perip­he­ries, and with diffe­rent levels of access to tech­no­logy. Each subject is connec­ted to real cases of online violence and has prac­ti­cal infor­ma­tion on how to deal with adver­sity in simi­lar scena­rios and unders­tand where to focus on secu­rity efforts. The second part of the guide is devo­ted to the use of mobile phones and how to have a safer device. There is also infor­ma­tion on what to do on social networks to coun­ter hate speech and the spre­a­ding unwan­ted inti­mate content. The guide is avai­la­ble in Portu­guese at: https://femi­nismo.org.br/guia-pratica-de-estra­te­gias-e-tati­cas-para-a-segu­ranca-digi­tal-femi­nista

[30] More infor­ma­tion on the land conflicts faced by the Panka­raru can be found in the follo­wing arti­cles in Portu­guese: https://jorna­lis­tas­liv­res.org/povo-panka­raru-luta-para-concre­ti­zar-demar­ca­cao, https://jorna­lis­tas­liv­res.org/panka­raru-seguem-na-luta-para-ocupar-seu-terri­to­rio .

[31] We use the term radia with an “a” instead of radio with an “o”, reflec­ting the femi­nine vs. mascu­line word ending typi­cal of Portu­guese, because the sexism in our language is an impor­tant issue and has an impact on how infras­truc­ture and machi­nes are percei­ved as a male field.

[32] Luiza Cilente as the coor­di­na­tor of the project and Bruna Zano­lli as radio and studio tech­ni­cian.

[33] www.thydewa.org; see also the project Pelas Mulhe­res Indí­ge­nas (For Indi­ge­nous Women): www.mulhe­re­sin­di­ge­nas.org

[34] www.fundo­so­ci­a­le­las.org

[35] A local arti­cu­la­tor is a person who has a commu­ni­ca­tion role in the commu­nity and is poli­ti­cally active at a local level. It is a common term in Portu­guese.

[36] Chan­ges in the law are currently being discus­sed, but the chan­ges, although signi­fi­cant, fall far short of addres­sing the real demands in the field. For exam­ple, the power allot­ment would go up to 150W and it would be possi­ble to have two frequen­cies per muni­ci­pa­lity. More infor­ma­tion can be found (in Portu­guese) at: https://www12.senado.leg.br/noti­cias/mate­rias/2018/07/10/apro­vado-projeto-que-aumenta-poten­cia-das-radios-comu­ni­ta­rias

[37] Bowker, G., & Star, S. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Clas­si­fi­ca­tion and Its Conse­quen­ces. Cambridge: MIT Press.

 

Notes:

This report was origi­nally publis­hed as part of a larger compi­la­tion: “Global Infor­ma­tion Soci­ety Watch 2018: Commu­nity Networks”

Crea­tive Commons Attri­bu­tion 4.0 Inter­na­ti­o­nal (CC BY 4.0) - Some rights reser­ved. 

ISBN 978–92–95113–05–3

APC Serial: APC-201810-CIPP-R-EN-P-295

ISBN 978–92–95113–06–0

APC Serial: APC-201810-CIPP-R-EN-DIGI­TAL-296

 

 

THEMES: 

• Infras­truc­ture