1. The United Kingdom’s Open Data Institute, which works with public and private entities promoting innovation through open data, defines closed data as “data that can only be accessed by its subject, owner or holder” (Broad 2015).

2. See the afterword.

3. I want to acknowledge at the very beginning that I am aware that this is not an unproblematic borrowing. The roots of this phrase in critical race theory are often erased and underplayed when invoked, as they increasingly are, in other contexts. I would like to thank Zach Blas for introducing me to Glissant’s thought some years ago and for questioning its use in different contexts.

1. Sharing Digitally

1. It is not within the scope of this book to address the extra- or predigital history of “sharing,” but, as Russell Belk (2010, 730) puts it, it is “likely the oldest type of consumption.”

2. Digital Keywords is a forum hosted by the University of Tulsa, which took inspiration from the fortieth anniversary of Raymond Williams’s 1976 Keywords. It is available at The entries have been published in a collection with Princeton University Press (Peters 2016).

2. Distribution of the (Digital) Sensible

1. See Chambers (2012) on the different incarnations of this term—subjectivation and subjectification.

3. Sharing as Protocological Condition

1. Armitage made these comments during a response he gave at an event centered on James Bridle at the Whitechapel Gallery, “Systems Literacy,” January 20, 2016.

5. Open and Closed Government Data

1. It is important, of course, to acknowledge that there is also social value to be gained from sharing some big data, such as genomics and other health-related data.

2. See, for example, Reuters’s (2013) footage.

4. Of course, this blurring of the social and economic is a key characteristic of the Internet. Thus social media platforms present their product as performing a service to, or even creating, a community (see Turner 2006).

5. It is important to recognize that this is not the whole story. There are, for example, some potentially revealing apps made possible by freely available data that highlight possible connections between donations and votes (e.g., Greenhouse at Having said this, in his article “Against Transparency,” Lawrence Lessig (2009) provides a scathing critique even of apps that try to illustrate the link between votes and donations.

6. Interrupting Shareveillance

10. Campbell-Moore (2013) does admit that “the goal of this project was to demonstrate a proof of concept of performing steganography on a social network with JPEG recompression, not to provide total security. Hence this application is only suitable for casual users and is totally useless for serious applications such as terrorism since detection would not be difficult for organisations such as the NSA.”

7. Working with Opacity

1. Liquid Books can be found at, Living Books About Life at The other series editor for the Living Books about Life project was Joanna Zylinska, and members of the project team included Sigi Jőttkandt, David Ottina, and Pete Woodbridge.

2. See Smith (2010) for an account of Tiqqun, the Invisible Committee, and the arrests of the “Tarnac 9.”