Our Friend the Computer

I am currently devouring the Our Friend The Computer podcast, "a podcast exploring alternative computing histories and their relationship to society". It's interesting, engaging, and provides lots of stimulating avenues to consider the aspirations of early networks, their development, and their impact on society at the time.

I really appreciate the social, cultural and art lenses that it applies. The first several episodes I've listened to - I'm approaching the end of the "Pre-Internet Networks" season - discuss and consider the social impacts and experiences of several networks, including CyberSyn, OGAS, Minitel, Bildschirmtext, NABU and Beltel.

Unlike today's internet, each of those networks was situated quite specifically to one particular nation. It's really interesting here to investigate the state-architected^[1] development of early computer networks, and the strong design impact of the specific culture and social priorities of the country this was happening in.

It's fascinating to see the impact of each nation's culture and language lead to different qualities in each of the networks discussed. With Bildschirmtext we explore the development of a network in Germany as the country re-integrates after the cold war separation.

Let's not assume that's always for good, either: in the Beltel episode we her of early computing networks used as tools of apartheid. The Beltel episode hit pretty hard, to be honest; as a worker in the tech industry, I am mindful of tech companies participating in apartheid and genocide. That was true then, and sadly it is true today. We must use our power to see this, to resist and undo the damage of colonisation.

I am really enjoying the exploration of how each culture led to the development of a network for each environment. I'm sure this eventually resulted in interoperability challenges and those gradually contributed to the less culturally situated, more globalised internet we have in 2025.

For me this brings a reflection on the development of non-state networks, also. If a group is not represented within the state/power systems in play, they might have to subvert available systems to develop a non-state network (eg BBS usage by resistance groups in South Africa as a response to government control of Beltel), or somehow create a network of their own. The internet hasn't solved this.

It's also interesting to apply this consideration to the development of government supported or sponsored platforms in current times. Technologies such as Common Web Platforms, or technology preferences as expressed through purchasing boards or panels, express the desires of states in modern technology. These may be technologies controlled by a single vendor, which tend to increase dependency and reduce agency, or they may be platforms open to participation, which offer at least an opportunity for self-determination and agency to the state, its component organisations, and the citizens within it.

The podcast hosts, Camila Galaz and Ana Meisel, explore somewhat familiar tech spaces through a lens that's richer and more human than would typically be applied. I'm really grateful for their work and it's inspiring me to consider how I can apply creative and more emotive expression to my own understanding of our work and impacts in society. Thanks Camila and Ana! Your reflections are delightful.