With gratitude to the famous Peanuts cartoon. (And art help from ChatGPT.)

The EU’s new Digital Omnibus proposal aims to update and expand the GDPR, notably with Article 88b, which includes this:

A new Article 88b Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), for automated and machine-readable indications of individual choices and respect of those indications by website providers once standards are available.

That was written in June 2025. (I’ve boldfaced the phrases that matter.) We now have a standard for exactly what the EU wants and needs: IEEE 7012-2025—Standard for Machine-Readable Personal Privacy Terms. It is nicknamed MyTerms (much as IEEE 802.11 is nicknamed Wi-Fi) and was published by the IEEE in January 2026 after nine years in the making. Here’s the PDF.

Article 6 of the GDPR lists six bases for the  Lawfulness of Processing:

1. the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes;
2. processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;
3. processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
4. processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person;
5. processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
6. processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

I’ve boldfaced the three that matter, and italicised their core distinctions.

The entire adtech business relies on the first and last of these, consent and legitimate interests, as their excuses for tracking people, allowing them to obey the letter of the GDPR while screwing its spirit.

We see consent at work with every cookie notice we click on or click past. And we have no faith that clicks on consent “choices” provide any privacy protection at all. Reasons:

1. Most sites ignore cookie choices.
2. Many sites set cookies even before a cookie choice is made.
3. It’s obvious that adtech is a personalised guesswork business that relies on surveillance, so most of these “choices” are misdirections away from corporate hunger for personal data.
4. We have no record of the “choices” we make (and in many cases, no choice is offered), or any way to audit or dispute compliance.
5. Uninvited and unwanted surveillance is by now so far out of control that cars, TVs, and AI chatbots are all in on the game (and hardly bother with consent notices).

The legitimate interests are advertising and surveillance, which Google, Facebook and the IAB say the world needs, because it funds so much of what happens online.

To the adtech business, personal privacy is a bug, not a feature. The whole business is incentivised to violate privacy, because violating privacy pays. No amount of regulatory oversight will fix that. To adtech, paying fines for privacy violations is just a cost of doing business.

The only fix that will work is what people—customers and citizens—bring to the market’s table. With MyTerms, they can do that.

MyTerms addresses the second of the GDPR’s six legal bases: contract. Put simply, here is what  the MyTerms standard says:

• The person (not a mere data subject) is the first party, and the site or service is the second party.
• The person proffers a contractual agreement chosen from a limited roster posted on the public website of a disinterested nonprofit, such as Customer Commons (which was created to do for personal contracts what Creative Commons does for personal copyrights—and which the IEEE approached with the idea for making MyTerms a standard).
• When the second party agrees, both parties keep an identical record, which supports compliance auditing and dispute resolution. (By preserving evidence, this also creates an infrastructure for dispute avoidance as well.)

The GDPR succeeded by recognising natural persons as holders of rights, but it left intact the industrial age convention in which organisations are the exclusive originators of terms at scale. That’s one reason why persons have remained mere data subjects rather than contractual parties.

Fortunately, the Internet’s base protocols are peer-to-peer. Treating people on the Net as mere “users” and “data subjects” limits their agency. With MyTerms, people acquire a status they yielded when industry won the industrial revolution. (Before the industrial age, surnames—Baker, Müller, Weaver,  Lefebvre, Smith, Marchand, Farmer—signified agency: what people did in the world. That’s just one thing we lost when we became workers, executives, consumers, and users.)

In the natural world, privacy is maintained mostly by tacit agreements. In the digital world there is no tacit, so agreements must become explicit and programmable. This is why contracts are the only way we’ll get real personal privacy in the digital world.

It should also be clear by now that polite requests also don’t work. We tried that with Do Not Track, and by the time it finished failing, the adtech lobby had turned it into Tracking Preference Expression—as if we wanted to be tracked all along.

That main pro-consent lobby is the Interactive Advertising Bureau, or IAB. Among its recommendations for the Digital Omnibus are deleting 88b and  improving consent in various ways, such as  “Revise the proposed stricter consent rules.”

The IAB is blind to the simple fact that people hate being spied on and do what they can to stop it—mainly by turning off ads. By 2015, ad blocking was already the biggest boycott in human history. That boycott rose in direct response to obvious tracking, especially with retargeting. (That’s how one ad or advertiser keeps following you from site to site and app to app.)  And the boycott is much bigger now:

• By Q2 2023, there were 912M active ad-blocking users worldwide, up 11% from Q4 2021. (Source: e/yeo, with more here)
•  1.77 billion people worldwide were blocking ads by Q2 of 2026. (Source: Backlinko, citing DataReportal and e/yeo).
• Privacy-focused browsers (like Brave, Safari, and Firefox) automatically block advertising elements and behavioural tracking scripts by default. This is in clear response to market demand.

The IAB earned all of that. Yet they still see ad blocking and tracking protection as problems to solve rather than clear and constructive signals from the marketplace.

So it should be clear by now that the old brownfield of consent has become a toxic wasteland of surveillance, lost privacy, and minimised human agency—led by an industry that has been hostile to privacy from the start.

In fact, consent is required for what Shoshana Zuboff calls Surveillance Capitalism. That form of capitalism is based on inferred or extracted consent. The only way we can defeat that regime is by re-basing e-commerce on contractual agreements in which customers take the lead. After all, it’s their privacy that needs protection.

The surveillance economy is limited entirely by its methods, which are built around grabbing attention, harvesting data, and guessing at people.

We can replace it with an intention economy that’s based on what customers actually want. The range of those wants far exceeds what companies and their systems can guess at. Far more business, and business improvement, opens up when market intelligence can flow both ways. In the consent/surveillance regime, it can’t, because all relationships are silo’d in sellers’ separate systems, all built to minimize customer interactions, by design. But relationships built on respectful contractual agreements can be far more capacious when those relationships start with forms of mutual trust that whole markets share. That’s what MyTerms makes possible.

Here is a quick outline of some additional benefits.

For customers, the most obvious one is getting rid of cookie notices, which are annoying and not worth the pixels they are printed on.  If a company really does care about personal privacy, it’ll respect personal privacy requirements. This is how things work in the natural world, where tracking people like marked animals has been morally wrong for millennia. In the digital world, however, agreements need to be explicit, so programming and services can be based on them. MyTerms does that.

For business, MyTerms has lots of advantages:

• Reduced or eliminated compliance risk
• Competitive differentiation
• Lower customer churn
• A basis for real rather than coerced relationships
• A basis for better signalling in both directions
• Reduced or eliminated guesswork about what customers want, how they use products and services, and  how both might be improved

Lawyers get a new market for services on both the buy and sell sides of the marketplace. Companies in the CMP (consent management platform) business (e.g. Admiral and OneTrust) have something new and better to sell to enterprises (and perhaps to people as well).

Lawmakers and Regulators can start looking at the Internet and the Web as places where freedom of contract prevails, and contracts of adhesion (such as what you “agree” to with cookie notices) are obsolete.

Developers can have a field day (or decade). Look for these categories to emerge

• Agreement Management Platforms — an evolutionary step forward from consent management platforms.
• Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – Make its middle name finally mean something.
• Customer Data Return (CDR) – Give, sell back, or share with customers the data you’ve been gathering without their permission since forever. Talking here to car companies, TV makers, app makers, and every other technology product with spyware onboard for reporting personal activity to parties unknown.
• Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) Tools and services — a customer hand for CRM to shake.
• Platform Relief –  Free customers from the walled gardens of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and every other maker of hardware and software that currently bears the full burden of providing personal privacy to customers and users. Those companies can also embrace and help implement MyTerms for both sides of the marketplace.
• Personal AI (pAI)– Till and plant a vast new greenfield for countless companies, old and new. This includes Apple (which can make Apple Intelligence truly “AI for the rest of us” rather than Siri in AI drag), Mozilla (with its Business Accelerator for personal AI) , Kwaai (for open source personal AI), and everyone else who wants to jump on the train.
• Big meshes of agents, such as what these developers are all working on.

In the marketplace, we can start to see all these things:

• VRM + CRM will flourish, as described by Iain Henderson (one of MyTerms’ authors) in Towards Network-Based Ecosystems.
• We should expect improvements to digital public infrastructure, as relationships move out of Big Tech’s silos and into distributed relationship frameworks based on the Internet’s base peer-to-peer protocols.
• Predictions I made in The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge (Harvard Business Review Press, 2012) and Tim Berners-Lee made in the Attention vs. Intention chapter of This Is for Everyone: The Unfinished Story of the World Wide Web (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2025) will finally come true.
• There will be new dances between customers and companies. (“The Dance” is a closing chapter of The Intention Economy.)
• New commercial ecosystems can grow around a richer flow of useful information in both directions, based on shared interest and trust between customers and companies.
• Surveillance capitalism will be obsolesced — and replaced by an economy aligned with personal agency and mutual respect from contractual partners.

And much more.

So it would be helpful for the European Commission to expand its scope from protecting data subjects to empowering first parties. They can do that by welcoming MyTerms in the Omnibus Directive, expanding human agency into a new greenfield where boundless positive outcomes can flourish.

Drafts of myterms agreements are currently posted at MyTerms.info, which is a project of Customer Commons and MyData Global. You can also read more about MyTerms in writings by Iain Henderson, Nitin Badjatia, and me.

We also invite you to join the ProjectVRM list, where we can converse and collaborate on moving MyTerms forward.

There is no organisation on Earth with a more audacious purpose than this one:

From Customer Commons’ current index page.

This isn’t shooting for the Moon. It’s shooting for the whole world of business.

What Customer Commons wants to restore isn’t just what was lost when the Internet got real. (For example, privacy.) Customer Commons also wants to restore personal agency that was lost when Industry won the Industrial Revolution. That’s when jobs replaced work, labour replaced teams, and customers became consumers.

That last shift, Jerry Michalski explains, was from human beings to “gullets with wallets and eyeballs.” After that shift, freedom of contract in marketplaces was enjoyed only by businesses. Not by gullets.

Customer Commons was created to change that. It was spun out of ProjectVRM as a 501(c)3 nonprofit in 2013, shortly after Harvard Business Review Press published  The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge. That book specifically gave Customer Commons the job of doing for personal privacy terms what Creative Commons did for personal copyright.  And to do it by making privacy a contract between customers and businesses, rather than a “consent” to whatever the hell businesses wanted to shove down our gullets. (For example, with interruptive cookie “choices” that really aren’t and leave no audit trail.)

Work on that began in 2017, when the IEEE approached Customer Commons with an offer to host development of a standard for machine-readable personal privacy terms. That standard, officially called IEEE 7012-2025, and nicknamed MyTerms, was published this past January, concluding nine years of work.

Now what?

MyTerms is a great start toward completing Customer Commons’ audacious mission. Here are some goals we will achieve when that mission is accomplished:

1. VRM will be a business category, welcomed and engaged by CRM and CX functions on the sell sides of markets.
2. We will have proof that free customers are worth more than captive ones—to companies they engage, to whole markets, and to themselves. This was ProjectVRM’s original mission in 2006.
3. The intention economy will materialize when voluntary signaling from customers to companies outperforms and obsolesces surveillance as the primary means for companies to obtain data about customers.

MyTerms is required for all three, because a contract is the only way for companies to commit to respecting personal privacy, and MyTerms is the standard for doing that.

So the first challenge is to make Customer Commons viable as the first mover in establishing MyTerms in the world.

The second challenge is to make Customer Commons substantial enough to lead work toward all three of the challenges listed above. Customer Commons won’t be the only entity working on those. In the U.S., Consumer Reports has already stepped forward as a natural ally.  MyData Global is partnering with Customer Commons in standing up the MyTerms Alliance, which is HQ’d in Europe. There are many other potential partners, such as Mozilla and the EFF.

There is development work on MyTerms already. You can learn more about those at VRM Day, IIW, and AIW, which run M-F through the last week of this month (April 27 to May 1) at the Computer History Museum in Silicon Valley.

Here are other ideas that have been floated in the past for Customer Commons:

1. Customers Union. Being for customers what the AARP is for retired people. Only bigger, because it would include everybody who is a customer of anything. This isn’t far from Consumers Union, which begat Consumer Reports, and is now its advocacy group.
2. CustomerCon. A trade show with company booths run by customers, to which companies are invited as guests. Key feature: no complaining. Guest companies are treated only to positive and constructive ideas. HT to Tim Hwang for helping come up with that one.
3. Omie. A tablet with apps free of Google and Apple. HT to Iain Henderson.
4. The ByWay, a new path for local e-commerce.
5. The Free Customer Award. This would be given to companies that value free customers and do nothing to entrap them. The canonical example described in The Intention Economy is Trader Joe’s. But there are others. In-N-Out Burger, for example.

I share those only to give you an idea of how big and influential Customer Commons might be, and how it’s possible to have fun making a new and better economy happen.

We’re not at Square One. Customer Commons is an extant nonprofit, has an energetic board, and a huge accomplishment by getting MyTerms finished. What it needs now is to build out a working organisation. How can we do that?

Let’s look at how Creative Commons got rolling in 2002 and kept moving after that. Here is what I’ve found in diggings so far—

• The History of Creative Commons in Wired (December 2011) says, “An hour after the court’s decision was announced, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation presented Creative Commons with $1,000,000 to launch the movement.” The case was Eldred v. Ashcroft.
• In 2008, there was a successful funding challenge from Hewlett: “The 5×5 challenge, issued in honor of Creative Commons’ fifth birthday, called for the organization to find five funders to each promise five years of support at $500,000 per year. In addition to the Hewlett Foundation, Creative Commons received pledges of $500,000 in yearly support for five years from Omidyar Network, as well as from an anonymous European trust. Google has pledged $300,000 in support renewable for five years, while Mozilla and Red Hat have each pledged to contribute $100,000 annually for five years. The final block of support comes from the board of Creative Commons, which has promised to personally raise or contribute $500,000 to the organization annually for five years.”(Source: Creative Commons Newsletter No.5, February 2008)
• A Creative Commons  announcement in April 2008 said, “We’re thrilled about a major new grant of $4 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, consisting of $2.5 million to provide general support to Creative Commons over five years, as well as $1.5 million to support ccLearn.”
• A MacArthur grant search reports a total of $3,225,000 provided between 2002 and 2022:
  • $750,000 in 2005 to support general operations for three years
  • $500,000 in 2007 to support Science Commons for two years
  • $700,000 in2008 to support general operations and an endowment campaign for three years
  • $25,000 in 2015 to provide travel and other support for attendees of the Creative Commons Global Summit in South Korea, for two months. The meeting was also funded in part by the Institute for Museu m and Library Services and th e Gates Foundation, and by the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism ($25,000), Mozilla ($10,000), and the Wikimedia Foundation ($10,000).
  • $50,000 in 2022 to support dedicated programming on open journalism issues at the 2023 Global Summit, “which is an annual event that brings together educators, artists, technologists, legal experts, and activists to promote the power of open licensing and global access.”

So, by inference, the phases were roughly this:

• Launch (2001–2002) $1M of initial funding
• Early build-out (2002–2004) +$1–3M with  additional foundation support
• Continuous operations (2005 onward) at ~$1–3M/year

That gives us an idea of what we need to raise. (Given inflation, multiply those numbers by 1.5x.)

I’ll tell you more when I find out more. Meanwhile, watch this space. Better yet, jump in and help out.

After we came to Bloomington in the summer of 2021, we rented an apartment by Prospect Hill, a quiet dome of old houses just west of downtown. There we were surprised to hear, nearly every night, as many police and ambulance sirens as we’d heard in our Manhattan apartment. Helicopters too. Soon we realized why: the city’s hospital was right across 2nd Street, a couple blocks away. In 2022, the beautiful new IU Health Bloomington Hospital opened up on the far side of town, and the sounds of sirens were replaced by the sounds of heavy machinery slowly tearing the old place down.

Being a photographer and a news junkie, I thought it would be a good idea to shoot the place often, to compile a chronicle of demolition and replacement, as I had done for the transition of Hollywood Park to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California. But I was too busy doing other things, and all I got was that photo above, which I think Dave Askins would categorize as a small contribution to topical history.

Dave is a highly productive local journalist, and—by grace of providence for a lifelong student of journalism such as me—the deepest and most original thinker I know on the topic of what local news needs in our time—and going forward. I’ve shared some of Dave’s other ideas (and work) in the News Commons series, but this time I’m turning a whole post over to him. Dig:::::

In the same way that every little place in America used to have a printed newspaper, every little place in America could have an online local chronicle.

Broadly speaking, an online local chronicle is a collection of facts organized mostly in chronological order. The “pages” of the chronicle can be thought of as subsets of a community’s universal timeline of events. These online local chronicles could become the backbone of local news operations.

First a word about what a local chronicle is not. It is not an online encyclopedia about the little place. It’s not a comprehensive history of the place in any conventional sense. Why should it not try to be those things? Because those things are too hard to think about building from scratch. Where would you even start?

It is at least conceivable that an online local chronicle could be built from scratch because you start by adding new facts that are newsworthy today. A new fact added to the chronicle is a touchstone, about which anyone can reasonably ask: What came just before that?

A working journalist in a little place with an online local chronicle will be in a good position to do two things: (1) add new facts to the local chronicle (2) help define sets of old facts that would be useful to include in the online local chronicle.

A journalist who is reporting the news for a little place would think not just about writing a report of new facts for readers today. They would keep this question in mind: What collection of old facts, if they were included in the local chronicle, would have made this news report easier to write?

Here’s a concrete example. A recent news report written for The B Square Bulletin included a mention of a planned new jail for Monroe County. It included a final sentence meant to give readers, who might be new to that particular topic, a sense of the basic reason why anyone was thinking about building a new jail: “A consultant’s report from two and a half years ago concluded that the current jail is failing to provide constitutional levels of care.”

About that sentence, a reader left the following comment on the website: “I know it’s the last sentence in an otherwise informative article, but at the risk of nit-picking that sentence seems inadequate to the task of explaining the context of the notion of a new jail and the role of the federal court and the ACLU.”

The comment continues: “It would have been better, Dave, to link to your own excellent previous work: https://bsquarebulletin.com/2023/02/20/monroe-county-sheriff-commissioners-square-off-at-committee-meeting-aclu-lawyer-says-look-you-need-a-new-jail-everyone-knows-that/”

What this reader did was to identify a set of old facts that should be a collection (a page) in Bloomington’s local chronicle.

It’s one thing to identify a need to add a specific collection of facts to the local chronicle. It’s quite another to figure out who might do that. Working journalists might have time to add a new fact or two. But to expect working journalists to add all the old sets of facts would, I think, be too tall an order.

The idea would be to recruit volunteers to do the work of adding old facts to the online local chronicle. They could be drawn from various segments of the community—including groups that have an interest in seeing the old facts about a particular topic not just preserved, but used by working journalists to help report new facts.

I think many community efforts to build a comprehensive community encyclopedia have foundered, because the motivation to make a contribution to the effort is mostly philosophical: History is generally good to preserve.

The motivation for helping to build the online local chronicle is not some general sense of good purpose. Rather it is to help working journalists provide useful facts for anyone who in the community who is trying to make a decision.

That includes elected leaders. They might want to know what the reasons were at the time for building the current jail at the spot where it is now.

Decision makers include voters, who might be trying to decide which candidate to support.

Decision makers also include rank-and-file residents—who might be trying to decide where to go out for dinner and want to know what the history of health inspections for a particular restaurant are.

For the online local chronicle I have set up for Bloomington, there are very few pages so far. They are meant to illustrate the general concept:

Journalism is in trouble because journals are going away. So are broadcasters that do journalism rather than opinionism.*

Basically, they are either drowning in digital muck or adapting to it—and many have. Also in that muck are a zillion new journalists, born native to digital life. Those zillions include everybody with something to say, for example with blogs or podcasts. As Clay Shirky put it in the title of a very relevant book about our topic, Here Comes Everybody.

An odd fact about digital life is that its world is the Internet, which works by eliminating the functional distance between everybody and everything. Think of this habitat as a giant three-dimensional zero: a hollow sphere with an interior that is as close to zero as possible in both distance and cost for everything on it. This is a very weird space that isn’t one, even though we call it one because space works as a metaphor.

Still, we are all embodied creatures operating in a natural world with plenty of distance and lots of costs. This is why we form communities, towns, cities, organizations, institutions, and social networks of people who see and talk to each other in the flesh.

For more than a century, the information center that held a town or a city together was its newspaper. This is no longer the case. The Monroe Country History Center and the Herald-Times (our local paper) explain the situation in an outstanding exhibit at the Center’s museum called Breaking the News:

If you’re reading this on something small, click on it to see the full-size original.

But hey! There are still plenty of journals, journalists, and news sources here in town, including the Herald-Times. That’s some of their logos, gathered at the top of this page. I also listed them in my last post, calling them all, together, wide news. If their work is well-archived we’ll also have what I call deep news in the prior post.

I suggest that the answer to the question asked by that exhibit—where will it go now?— is whole news. That’s what you get when all these media cohere into both a commons and a market.

And, as it happens, we have some resources for creating both.

One is the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University, where my wife Joyce and I are both visiting scholars. The workshop carries forward the pioneering work of Elinor Ostrom, who won a Nobel Prize in economics for her work on commons of many kinds. If we’re going to make a whole news commons, the Workshop can be hugely helpful. (So can other folks we know, such as Clay Shirky. Note that the subtitle of Here Comes Everybody is The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Clay will be here to speak in our salon series at IU in December.)

Another is Customer Commons, a nonprofit that Joyce and I started as part of ProjectVRM, which we launched when I started a fellowship at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center in 2006. Customer Commons (says here) is “a public-facing organization focused on emerging issues at the intersection of empowered individuals and the public good,” while ProjectVRM is a community with hundreds of developers and others working on new business models that start with self-empowered customers. Within both are business model ideas for journalism that have been waiting for the right time and place to try out. (Examples are intentcasting listenlog and emancipay.)

But the first step for us is getting to know the people and organizations on the supply side of news here in Bloomington, where Joyce and have now lived for two years. We know some local journalists already, and would love to know the rest. If I don’t reach you first, email me at doc at searls dot com.

And, as always, everything I’ve written above is subject to corrections and improvements, so I invite those too.

*Put simply, journalism’s mission is to get stories right, while opinionism’s mission is to get and keep an audience. But it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference, because the same labels can apply to both, and even the best journalism rests to some degree on opinions—of experts and eyewitnesses, for example.

You can see how blurry this can get by looking at Nielsen’s ratings for radio stations. Here is a table of Nielsen’s top twenty-five markets, with links to each station with a measurable audience, and labels for each station’s format. As you look at each market, click on the station link to see what’s behind its “News/Talk,” “News,” or “All News” label:

For example, in Dallas-Fort Worth, KERA and WBAP are both “News/Talk.” But KERA’s schedule is built around NPR programs while WBAP’s schedule is built around conservative talkers. Listen to both to draw or re-draw your own conclusions.

News/Talk, however, is at most a very small part of whole news, which is about how no one source of good information owns the whole space, as newspapers used to do. We haven’t yet defined this space, which is why we need to talk about it.

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.
— Thomas Jefferson

News is the first rough draft of history. — Countless journalists

“Breaking the News” is the title of an exhibit at the Monroe County History Center here in Bloomington, Indiana.* It traces the history of local news from the mid-18oos, when several competing newspapers served a population of a thousand people or less, to our current time, when the golden age of newspapers is long past, and its survivors and successors struggle to fill the empty shoes of local papers while finding new ways to get around and get along.

Most of the exhibits are provided by what’s left of the city’s final major newspaper, the Herald-Times, which thankfully still persists. Archives of the paper are also online, going back to 1988. I am told that there are microfilm archives going back farther, available at the Monroe County Public Library. Meanwhile, bound volumes of the paper, from the 1950s through 2013, are up for auction. (More here, including word that older bound volumes are apparently lost.)

Meanwhile, in our other hometown, the Santa Barbara News-Press is gone after serving the city for more than 150 years. The Wikipedia article for the paper now speaks of it in the past tense: was. Its owner, Ampersand Publishing (for which I can find nothing online), filed for bankruptcy late last month. You can read reports about it in KSBY, the LA Times, the Independent, Noozhawk, Edhat, and a raft of other local and regional news organizations.

From what I’ve read so far (and I’d love to be wrong) none of those news reports touch on the subject of the News-Press‘ archives, which conceivably reach back across the century and a half it was published. There can’t be a better first draft of history for Santa Barbara than that one. If it’s gone, the loss is incalculable.

Back here in Bloomington, Dave Askins of the B Square Bulletin, which reports on what public offices and officials are up to, has issued a public RFQ for a digital file repository that will be a first step in the direction of what I suggest we call deep news. Namely, the kind that depends on archives. It begins,

Introduction:
The B Square is seeking proposals from qualified web developers to create a digital file repository. The purpose of this repository is to provide a platform where residents of the Bloomington area can contribute and access digital files of civic or historical interest. This repository will allow users to upload files, add metadata, perform searches, and receive notifications about new additions. We invite interested parties to submit their proposals, outlining their approach, capabilities, and cost estimates for the development and implementation of this project. For an example of a similar project, see: https://a2docs.org/ For the source code of that project, see: https://github.com/a2civictech/docstore.

The links go to a project in Ann Arbor (where Dave used to live and work) that was clearly ahead of its time, which is now.

We also need wide news, which is what you get from lots of organizations and people doing more than filling the void left by shrunken or departed newspapers. (Also local radio, most of which is now just music and talk programs piped in from elsewhere.)

News reporting is a process more than a product, and the Internet opens that process to countless new participants and approaches. Many of us have been writing, talking, and working toward Internet-enabled journalism since the last millennium. Jim Fallows (see below), Dan Gillmor, Dave Winer, JD Lasica, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, Emily Bell & crew at the Tow Center, and Joshua Benton and the crew at NiemanLab, are among those who come to mind. (I’ll be adding more.) Me too (for example, here).

Wide news, when it happens, is a commons: an informal cooperative. (The Ostrom Workshop, where my wife and I are visiting scholars, studies them.) I think we are getting there in Santa Barbara. But, as the LA Times story on the News-Press suggests in its closing paragraphs, there are gaps:

Santa Barbarans have turned to other sources as the newspaper’s staff withered to just a handful of journalists. Along with the Independent and Noozhawk, some locals said they turn to KEYT television and to Edhat, a website that relies heavily on “citizen journalists” to report on local events.

Melinda Burns, one of many reporters who left the paper after feuding with management, now provides freelance stories to many of the alternative news organizations. Burns, who has spent decades in the news business, including a stint at the Los Angeles Times, said she has seen gaps in coverage in recent years, particularly in the areas of water policy and the changes wrought by legalized cannabis. She continues to report on those topics and said she gives away her in-depth stories free to reach as many people as possible.

“It keeps me engaged with the community and, God, do we need the coverage,” she said. “The local news outlets are valiant but overworked. It’s just a constant scramble for them to try to keep up.”

Maybe it helps to know that a landmark local news institution is gone, and the community needs to create a journalistic commons, together: one without a single canonical source, or a scoop-driven culture.

I think the combination of deep and wide news is a new thing we don’t have yet. I’ll call it whole news. We’ll know it’s whole by what’s not missing. Is hard news covered? City hall? Sports? Music? Fashion? Culture? Events? Is there a collected calendar where anyone can see everything that’s going on? With whole news, there is a checkmark beside each of those and more.

Toward one of those checkmarks (in addition to the one for city hall), Dave Askins has put together a collective calendar for Bloomington. Wherever you are, you can make one of your own, filled by RSS feeds and .ics files.

At the close of all his news reports, Scoop Nisker (who just died, dammit) said, “If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.”

So let’s do it.

*Breaking the News is also James Fallows‘ newsletter on Substack. I recommend it highly.

Glenn Fleishman has a lucid and helpful introduction to Mastodon in TidBITS that opens with this:

Cast your mind back to the first time you experienced joy and wonder on the Internet. Do you worry you’ll never be able to capture that sense again? If so, it’s worth wading gently into the world of Mastodon microblogging to see if it offers something fresh and delightful. It might remind you—as it does me, at least for now—of the days when you didn’t view online interactions with some level of dread.

Mastodon isn’t a service but a network of consensually affiliated, independently operated servers running the Mastodon software. It’s the best-known example of the so-called Fediverse…

Then, a few paragraphs later, he provides the best metaphor I’ve yet seen for what Mastodon is and how it works:

You can think of Mastodon as a flotilla of boats of vastly different sizes, whereas Twitter is like being on a cruise ship the size of a continent. Some Mastodon boats might be cruise liners with as many as 50,000 passengers; others are just dinghies with a single occupant! The admin of each instance—the captain of your particular boat—might make arbitrary decisions you disagree with as heartily as with any commercial operator’s tacks and turns. But you’re not stuck on your boat, with abandoning ship as the only alternative. Instead, you can hop from one boat to another without losing your place in the flotilla community. Parts of a flotilla can also splinter off and form their own disconnected groups, but no boat, however large, is in charge of the community.

Since my day job is working as a visiting scholar in the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University, and Customer Commons has been imagined from its start as a potential commons for customers (or as many commons, flotilla style), I find myself wondering if each of Mastodon’s boats is a commons. Or if some of them could be, or already are. Or if Mastodon itself is one.

My first experience with Mastodon came early on, in a boat that I abandoned before it sank. But now that Mastodon is hot again, I’ve jumped with two crowds onto two boats: twit.social (here) and journa.host (here). TWiT.social’s occupants are the community of hosts, co-hosts, and participants in the TWiT network. Journa.host’s occupants are a collection of journalists. The two communities are different, though not entirely: journalists abound in both of them.

The question for me here is if any of these boats qualify as a commons. Or if Mastodon itself is one.

To qualify as a commons, a canonical list to check off is provided by Elinor Ostrom. In Governing the Commons (Cambridge, 1990), she outlined eight “design principles” for stable local common pool resource (CPR) management. I’ll make notes following each in italics:

1. Clearly defining the group boundaries (and effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties) and the contents of the common pool resource. Mastodon is designed to support that.
2. The appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions. If we’re talking about code, yes. Maybe more. Gotta think about that.
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process. Depends on the instance, I suppose. 
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators. Not sure about that one. 
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules. Up to the person or people running each boat.
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access. I think these range from informal to formal, and draw from rules developed for mailing lists and other fora. But, not sure.
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities. At the top level, it’s othe Mastodon dev community. At the boat (instance) level, it’s the captain(s) of each.
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs (common pool resources) at the base level. A thought: the common pool resource is the authors of posts (aka toots) and the posts themselves.

Ostrom and others have also gone deeper and wider than that, for example by examining socio-ecological systems (SESes), defined here in 2004. I’ll leave digging into that up to scholars more schooled than I (or to a later post, after I finish schooling myself). Meanwhile, I think it’s important, given the sudden growth of Mastodon and other federated systems with flotilla-ish qualities, to examine how deep research and writing on commons apply.

This work does matter: Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for it, and it may matter more now than ever.

And help is welcome.

About the photo up top: Lacking a royalty-free visual for a flotilla of boats, I settled on the collections of people you see through bubbles in the photo above, which I shot on the grounds of Versailles. Kinda works, methinks.