Science Must Decentralize

3 days 21 hours ago

Knowledge production doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every great scientific breakthrough is built on prior work, and an ongoing exchange with peers in the field. That’s why we need to address the threat of major publishers and platforms having an improper influence on how scientific knowledge is accessed—or outright suppressed.

In the digital age, the collaborative and often community-governed effort of scholarly research has gone global and unlocked unprecedented potential to improve our understanding and quality of life. That is, if we let it. Publishers continue to monopolize access to life-saving research and increase the burden on researchers through article processing charges and a pyramid of volunteer labor. This exploitation makes a mockery of open inquiry and the denial of access as a serious human rights issue.

While alternatives like Diamond Open Access are promising, crashing through publishing gatekeepers isn’t enough. Large intermediary platforms are capturing other aspects of the research process—inserting themselves between researchers and between the researchers and these published works—through platformization

Funneling scholars into a few major platforms isn’t just annoying, it’s corrosive to privacy and intellectual freedom. Enshittification has come for research infrastructure, turning everyday tools into avenues for surveillance. Most professors are now worried their research is being scrutinized by academic bossware, forcing them to worry about arbitrary metrics which don’t always reflect research quality. While playing this numbers game, a growing threat of surveillance in scholarly publishing gives these measures a menacing tilt, chilling the publication and access of targeted research areas. These risks spike in the midst of governmental campaigns to muzzle scientific knowledge, buttressed by a scourge of platform censorship on corporate social media.

The only antidote to this ‘platformization’ is Open Science and decentralization. Infrastructure we rely on must be built in the open and on interoperable standards, and hostile to corporate (or governmental) takeovers. Universities and the science community are well situated to lead this fight. As we’ve seen in EFF’s TOR University Challenge, promoting access to knowledge and public interest infrastructure is aligned with the core values of higher education. 

Using social media as an example, universities have a strong interest in promoting the work being done at their campuses far and wide. This is where traditional platforms fall short: algorithms typically prioritizing paid content, downrank off-site links, and prioritize sensational claims to drive engagement. When users are free from enshittification and can themselves control the  platform’s algorithms, as they can on platforms like Bluesky, scientists get more engagement and find interactions are more useful

Institutions play a pivotal role in encouraging the adoption of these alternatives, ranging from leveraging existing IT support to assist with account use and verification, all the way to shouldering some of the hosting with Mastodon instances and/or Bluesky PDS for official accounts. This support is good for the research, good for the university, and makes our systems of science more resilient to attacks on science and the instability of digital monocultures.

This subtle influence of intermediaries can also appear in other tools relied on by researchers, while there are a number of open alternatives and interoperable tools developed for everything from citation managementdata hosting to online chat among collaborators. Individual scholars and research teams can implement these tools today, but real change depends on institutions investing in tech that puts community before shareholders.

When infrastructure is too centralized, gatekeepers gain new powers to capture, enshittify, and censor. The result is a system that becomes less useful, less stable, and with more costs put on access. Science thrives on sharing and access equity, and its future depends on a global and democratic revolt against predatory centralized platforms.

EFF is proud to celebrate Open Access Week.

Rory Mir

[B] 「負けるなボルトン、ノーサレンダー」【西サハラ最新情報】  平田伊都子

4 days ago
2025年10月20日のホワイトハウス前庭での記者会見は、解体王トランプにとって面目躍如たる舞台となりました。 「ほら、解体の音が聞こえるだろ?」と、上機嫌で東ウィングを指さし、トランプ大統領ポールルーム(宴会場)建設のための解体工事開始を宣言しました。ボールルーム建設プロジェクトには2億5000万ドル(350憶円)以上の費用がかかる見通しで、トランプ解体王は7月に自身と協力者が負担すると言いました。 ニューヨークタイムズが、勝手に国の象徴であるホワイトハウスを解体していいのかどうかの、調査に入りました。 雑談会見で、解体したガザの復興について質問されたトランプ解体王は「Don’t worry about it(心配するな)」を繰り返し「OK?(わかったか!?)」と、打ち切りました。 ガザ復興見積もり金は、UNDP(国連開発計画)が700憶$(10兆6995憶円)と10月14日に発表しました。 アメリカは、国連未払金が15億$(2292憶7500万円)もあることを、忘れないでください。
日刊ベリタ

【辺野古新基地建設②】住民「原告適格」突破 那覇地裁 工事の適法性審理へ=北上田 毅(沖縄平和市民連絡会)<br />

4 days 1 hour ago
 辺野古新基地建設事業を巡っては、沖縄県が国と、これまで14件もの訴訟を争ってきた。しかし、訴えは、和解・取下げの4件を除き、いずれもほとんど本論に入ることなく、門前払いされてきた。 一方、辺野古周辺住民らの抗告訴訟も、原告適格の壁にぶつかってきた。しかし那覇地裁は本年8月7日、防衛局の設計変更申請を不承認とした県の処分を取り消した国土交通大臣の裁決取り消しを求めて周辺住民18人が提起した抗告訴訟で、一部の原告適格を認定、次回から工事の適法性そのものについての審理に入るとした..
JCJ