The Internets Own Boy
The Internet’s Own Boy: Reflections On Knowledge, Access and Control
6 October 2026
A Reflective Response to The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story Of Aaron Swartz, with reference to Lawrence Lessig and Shoshana Zuboff.
This documentary about the prodigy Aaron Swartz was remarkable but tragic. It served as a reminder of the limits placed upon citizens by their respective governments; in this case, the U.S. government. The documentary approached the story with grace and restraint, whilst still telling Aaron's story with so much conviction that the viewer naturally gravitates towards a more dominant emotional register of despair and injustice. I think the reason so many people connected with his story, despite not being tech prodigies themselves, is due to the unquenchable fire within us all, as humans, to make a change and do something in this world which truly matters. Aaron was able to manifest that desire into reality and was subsequently ruined for it; but in that moment of success, the world shifted. He had made a difference, and he made it known that it was possible for that fire inside us all to become something material. However, his political aspirations intimidated those in positions of power, regardless of how humble and good-intentioned they were. This begs the question: why? Why did the government do everything in its power to stamp him out of existence and stop him in his tracks? Why was he treated like a dangerous criminal for trying to make public records accessible and spread knowledge? Surely there is nothing inherently criminal about bringing public access to the public domain?¹
This led me to Lessig’s argument that “the burden of justification should fall on him who would defend systems of control.”² I found myself considering why systems of control are inherently justified simply because they are already established. In Aaron’s case, it seems that the question should not only be why he challenged the system, but why the system existed in such a fragile way that made his actions so threatening in the first place.
This also connected with Shoshana Zuboff’s discussion of the idea that “if it’s free, then you are the product,” which she argues is itself misleading. Rather than simply being the product, Zuboff argues that we are the source of the behavioural surplus extracted by surveillance capitalism.³ It left me wondering: what does it mean for information to be free, and who benefits from that freedom? It seems there is a ceiling for public information in the U.S. and for public intervention on archaic systems, and questioning these is a dangerous feat. Aaron possessed the ability to extrapolate his processes, both scientifically and technically, to make major changes on a systemic level.⁴
Notes
1.Brian Knappenberger, dir. The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story Of Aaron Swartz (2014), documentary film.
2.Lawrence Lessig, The Future Ideas: The Fate Of Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House, 2001), 14.
3.Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (New York: PublicAffairs, 2019), 9.
4. Knappenberger, The Internet’s Own Boy.
Bibliography
Knappenberger, Brian, dir. The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz. 2014.
Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Random House, 2001.
Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs, 2019.
Anatomy of an AI System
Anatomy of an AI System
17 September 2026
A Reflective Response to Anatomy of an AI System by Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler
Upon reading this article, I was struck by the fleeting nature of the immense extraction and exploitation of the earth’s non-renewable resources to sustain these minor human and technological interactions. When considered in relation to geological deep time, these interactions represent an almost insignificant fraction of a second, yet the environmental consequences of the processes that sustain them can be far more enduring. This fleeting nature of the technology we are using and the relatively short lifespan of many technological devices which are designed to become obsolete within a few years, compared to the lasting effects of exploitation and destruction of the earth is quite sickening to read about.
The concept of the new geological epoch; the Anthropocene, further complicates this draining relationship between human activity and geological time. In particular, when considering the extent to which human activity as a geological force has transformed the Earth’s sytems.¹ When viewed through this lens, the immense extraction of resources to sustain technological progress can therefore be understood by a much broader conversation surrounding humanity's relationship to the Earth, and the extent to which our pursuit of progress is altering the very systems upon which we depend.
This is especially concerning given the author’s discussion of how these processes of mining and exploitation of resources to fuel technological progress, is detrimental to most and benefiting only a very select few. However, it also struck me that this article maintains an analytical approach to AI systems, while presenting data and drawing comparisons that seem to encourage a more personal and emotional response from the reader.
I found the comparison between contemporary technological processes and medieval alchemy to be quite profound. Both practices involve a certain form of secrecy, with contemporary processes often protected by NDAs and trade secrets.² I found this to be a very interesting way of connecting historical approaches with technologies of the present. It encouraged me to think of AI from a more rounded perspective, in which geological processes, historical systems, and technological development are deeply intertwined. There is an illusion of separation of AI from the physical world, however this article has challenged that perception. I now understand that AI is embedded within these relationships and its illusion of separation from the physical world, can obscure how dependent it is on the earth as a whole, human labour and existing structures of power.
Notes
Shiralee Hudson Hill, “A Terrible Beauty: Art and Learning in the Anthropocene,” Journal of Museum Education 45, no.1 (2020): 76.
Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler. “Anatomy of an AI System: The Amazon Echo as an Anatomical Map of Human Labour, Data and Planetary Resources” (AI Now Institute and SHARE Lab, September 7, 2018), https://anatomyof.ai/.