Against the False “We” (‘undeclared movements’) - ADuqueJ After reading a call for projects against tech-fascim, I’ve read with discomfort the “collectiveness” gathered within a “we” that not only represents but makes “us” responsible like if “we” are all part of the same particular group of artists in the middle of Europe. Im conscious that in all good intention “they” work for the rest-of-us in the “world” whom, unable to identify with translocal ideas of “togertherness”, struggle against the powers of extractivist infrastructures in all life levels: **“We are only at the very beginning of conceptualizing anti-fascist tech, but the task is more urgent than ever.” ** Indeed, present times are the very beginning for to come drasticly misguided (by AI ‘malingformation’) epoch, hence the “we” in the sentence performs a slide off-track while assuming a shared commonplace, such a unified understanding of what constitutes fascism and what technology should do about it. Who is included in this “we”? Tech workers writing code? Academics writing papers? Activists organizing protests? People living under complete authoritarian regimes? Those in rural areas with no internet access are included or again, excluded? Communities whose power grids fail regularly and can’t afford devices or data plans to answer such ringing calls? Yes, there are populations displaced by conflict who had never known what means connection to digital networks. The sentence collapses. There’s no “We” that could fit into one voice. Not even naively.
...