How we receive now

In the fall of 2021 my book, How We Give Now, was published. Shortly thereafter I got covid, which turned into Long Covid. I've now been disabled since early 2022. I didn't get to tour with the book, missed out on lots of opportunities to share it with people, and had no chance to promote it. That's sad, but hey, life gives you lemons. 

I feel as if I've spent the time since getting sick in 2022 learning how to receive. To really rely on others, to depend on family and close friends for just about everything. And to be delighted by less-close friends who turn out to know when to come by, know how to be helpful, know how to just sit and be quiet together. Friends who will drive across town, load up me and my wheelchair, take me to a park (or to the ocean), sit there with me, then bring me back. Friends who bring food. Friends who bring blankets. Family that flies across country to help out. Family friends who come specifically to give my wife a break. People who walk the dog. It's a long list of acts, for each of which I am eternally grateful.

I'm not going to write a book called How We Receive Now, but I encourage you to think about both how you give and how you receive. Both are good to be good at. 

This year I was thrilled to join two book groups. This was a nudge to learn how to listen to audiobooks - as it's become very hard on my brain to read screens or books.  I'll never be good at citing audiobooks, but they sure help me "read" faster.

In one of the book groups, I am the youngest member by at least 16 years. Most of the members are at least 20 years older than I am. In the other, which admittedly is just me and one of my niblings, I am 35 years older than the other member. The first group reads mostly fiction with an occasional memoir (so far, one has been of a psychotherapist and the other of a psychic). The second group is alternating fiction with nonfiction politics. 

I threw an idea around earlier this year with some other philanthropy wonks - starting a zoom reading group of books on philanthropy. If you're interested in doing that let me know in the comments or at @p2173.bsky.social.

Blueprint 2025 includes a subset of the following list. Below are the (Non-Academic) books I've finished so far this year - will probably get a few more in and will then update. The Blueprint goes live on January 15, 2025.

Marking the baseline

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It guarantees me, a US born and raised, tax-paying, civic minded citizen the right to speak and to gather. Under the interpretation of these rights that has held for 248 years and all 61 of the years I've lived so far, I can loudly and repeatedly criticize my government, the people in it, and those leading it. I can do this in the park, on the street, on the internet. I can do it without fear of being arrested or locked up by the government that I criticize. As long as I have not made any actionable threats, I can criticize, ridicule, satirize, and mock all day, every day. 

                                            Photo by Maurits Bausenhart from Unsplash

This is a baseline assertion of this particular right - the right of free expression. 

I am putting it here because I fully expect us - Americans - to slip and slide away from this baseline over the next few years. To slowly be convinced that there are more limits on this right than there are, or that the right means things it doesn't (such as applying to private businesses. Or that your right to speak implies I need to listen (Nope)). To be told or have it strongly implied that one should be quiet. We will slip from this baseline, toward a much more limited - and white man privileging - definition of this right. 

We will start to censor ourselves. Major institutions - from foundations to universities - are already doing this. DEI statements are disappearing from websites and brochures. (The flimsiness of these commitments is evident in the speed with which institutions are ditching them).

Those who speak up will be subjected to on/offline harassment. Doxxing. Mobs and fear have become "expected" responses to those who speak against the incoming president and his allies. His allies now include the leaders/owners of the platforms we rely on to communicate with each other and to gather (or plan gatherings).

Mark this baseline. Mark your own behavior. If you believe, as I do, that we should not give in to the demands of a wanna be dictator if we want to keep our democracy, then exercise your right to free speech. 

I am putting this out there so you keep your eyes on me. In case anything happens to me. Because I intend to keep speaking out, to keep criticizing and mocking. To keep moving toward a multiracial democracy that enables all of us to do all we can to save out planet. Not to live in an oligarch-owned autocracy hell bent on grabhing as much power as they can, as quickly as they can, and with no intention of letting it go. I'm not giving them any of my power. And, if they shut me up for what I'm saying, you will know that we have lost our first amendment rights and the slide away from democracy has accelerated.

No anticipatory obedience

  Illustration by Aarón Blanco Tejedor

The popular vote differential between the Democratic and Republican candidates for US President was 1.7%. 49.9 percent of voters put a tyrant in the White House; 48.3 percent lost. The incoming administration (it does not have power, yet) is continuing the vitriolic hateful attacks on immigrants and transgender people that it believes won it the election. 

And, last week I was made aware of just how quickly people cave. People who would tell you they'd have acted differently in late 1930s Germany, or during other periods of generalized terror, fingerpointing, othering. People who think they're activists, who think of themselves as fighting for justice. 

A little background: A U.S. Congressional representative is trying to make a name for herself by writing a law directed at the first - and so far, only - out transgender member of Congress. Despite a prohibition on writing laws that single out people or enterprises, the House passed her law forbidding the use of Congressional women's bathrooms by transgender women. Two other Representatives stood up quickly and said, "Here, use this bathroom, and let's get on with doing real work." The Representative targeted by the bill said the same thing, "not here to fight about bathrooms, here to do real work" for the people she represents. 

Two weeks ago, this happened: The Representative who wrote the law was on a panel talking tech policy. The room was full of people - probably people from a number of organizations that work for a free and fair internet, net neutrality, low cost broadband, etc. Probably organizations that have DEI programs and inclusivity statements and nonharrasment policies. Part way through the panel, an acquaintance of mine stood up and asked the room 

"Are you fighting for a fair internet, or are you working for big tech? Technology will either be a force for justice, liberation and resistance to authoritarianism, or it will be a tool for the automation of tyranny, exploitation and greed. I know which side I’m on. I’m asking other tech advocates to figure out where they stand." 

They had with them a trans pride flag. They were immediately approached by security and removed from the room. But their questions lingered.

Let's be clear. They were not addressing the stage or the Representative. They were addressing the room. The tech policy wonks. The activists. From organizations you and I may have supported in the past. And NONE of the people in that room stood with my acquaintance. NONE of the other attendees left the room when they did. NO ONE stood with them. 

This is heartbreaking. And awful. And scary. 

The first rule of fighting authoritarianism is DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE. No anticipatory obedience. (See Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny, and every other book written about authoritarianism.)  

Another good rule (not from Snyder, from me) is to READ YOUR OPPONENT'S PLANS WHEN THEY PUBLISH THEM. Project 2025. And this synthesis across right wing groups to wipe out progressive civil society.

I bet if I were to ask, the people in that room (or, extrapolating from the election results, 1/2 of the people in that room) would tell you they fight for justice. That they were there in opposition to the Representative. That they care about an internet for all. Well, I can tell you this from watching what happened in that room. When the moment mattered, they didn't. Not 1/2 the room. Not one person.

Standing up for what's right when it's easy is easy. Standing up for what's right when it's hard, and scary, and dangerous? That's what protecting democracy and fighting for our rights takes now.

That room failed. That's terrifying.

This scares me. Scarier than the rhetoric and threats of the incoming Administration is the thought that people I hope will have my back, won't. That 48.3 percent of the country will take the electoral loss and give up, or only focus on the next election, or decide some people, some issues can be sacrificed. 

What would you have done? Really? I hope each of us will prepare to fight, safely and effectively, at big moments and small ones. This Administration has made it clear what it wants to do. We who it targets must take care of ourselves and stand with each other. Real allies will also stand.

An AI experiment for writing the Blueprint - text without context

This is an excerpt from Blueprint2025, which will publish on January 15, 2025. 

When I was writing Blueprint 2025 I started out trying an experiment to review the last 15 years. First, I commissioned an independent reader to review and let me know what they learned. 

Second, I used a large language model (LLM – the methodology underpinning most of the Chatbots in use) to analyze 15 Blueprints for me. I chose a tool called NotebookLM, a Google product made specifically for writers to be a research and note-taking tool that can quickly search, find text, and generate summaries. 

Part of my reasoning was that Google already has sucked up all the Blueprint content – it’s been on the web for years, is licensed as Creative Commons, and I knew I wouldn’t be feeding the digital beast any information it hadn’t already taken from me. Then I was then going to write a short piece comparing what I learned from Susan and what I learned from NotebookLM.

 

I scrapped the 3-part idea. First, because I didn’t learn much from NotebookLM. The few things I did learn are outlined below.

 

But I mostly scrapped the longer section because I don’t want to encourage playing around like this with AI. I want to encourage you to be very, very skeptical of how AI systems are being developed and by whom. I want you to think twice, and then again, before playing with them with information from your organization. I want you to read Jill Lepore’s words again, and think about how it’s the slow drip, drip of promised convenience that embeds technology in our lives in inextricable ways. I want to encourage you to seek out noncommercial options and non-government options. I want you to be VERY clear on the risks and benefits, to your mission, your constituents, and your colleagues. And I want your organization to participate in building any such systems in better ways – better for the environment, better for human rights, better for your purpose.

 

Reflection 2: Text without Context

 

NotebookLM is a large language model (the same structure that underlies chatbots such as ChatGPT) that uses a writer's own documents as its source material. Google says it is designed to help writers gain insights into their own documents faster. The team that developed it includes the writer Steven B. Johnson (The Ghost Map, The Invention of Air, and other books).

 

To find out what insights NotebookLM could provide, I uploaded 15 Blueprints, queried them in a variety of ways, and made a few observations on what I learned in doing so.[i] An example of a question I posed was “In what year did the Blueprint first discuss data donations?” Through this and many other queries, I learned that the system is good at answering questions that ask it to find facts within the pile of text, such as “what year” or “how many.”

 

I also tried several of the pre-loaded questions that the system prompts you to ask, such as “Create a thematic outline” of the documents. This is basically what I asked Susan Joanis to do—read 15 Blueprints and tell me what they argue. I learned that the AI uses certain types of text as signposts—so subheadings and the tables of contents are transformed into emphasis.  Beyond that, nothing. NotebookLM can only find text, it can’t add understand or add context, certainly not any context beyond the words in its database. There’s a huge difference between pattern-matching text (what AIs do) and understanding the context (what humans do). [aaf1] 

 

NotebookLM also provided misleading and false emphasis, which can best be experienced through its Audio Overview. With the click of a button the site will generate an audio summary – you can hear it here. These fake voices attempt to add context by adding tone and emphasis; and, indeed, they sound like real people. That’s frightening, precisely because it sounds so real.

 

Here's what I learned: 

    this AI system is good at counting, pattern finding, and it’s fast. 

That's all.

 

These benefits come at a cost – I’ve paid it in my data, my IP, and my time, all of which contribute to the growth of Google.

 

One of the last things I think we need right now is ways to manipulate information. We already can’t tell truth from fiction. It’s not good for us as readers, as neighbors, as professionals, or as citizens. It’s not good for democracy to be creating and proliferating systems that further corrode trust and truth. We’re already watching disaster responders and city managers get attacked because of good old fashioned human-spread lies. Building systems that spread more lies, faster and further, is self-destructive. It’s not good for disaster response; it’s not good for democracy.

 

---

[i] I believe the AI companies have illegally taken the copyrighted material of countless authors and should be penalized. However, I wasn’t concerned about this for the Blueprints as 1) I figured they live on the web, they’ve already been used by every AI company; 2) I license them under creative commons to make them easy to use; and 3) basically, everything in them is already publicly available to do with as you (almost) please. There are a lot of other things that I would not put into this system or any other AI. 

---

 

Digital civil society and digital governance

                                      Philadelphia, Independence Hall, photo by Miguel Angel Sanz from Unsplash

I'm an historian. I used to sit in graduate seminars about the founding of the United States and wonder what these guys (all men, those founding fathers) were really thinking? Where did their ideas come from? There's lots of important scholarship about this now, including work that centers the knowledge of indigenous communities (land stolen, ideas taken). 

We're in a moment like that one in digital spaces. Pick an area of social, economic or political life and I can guarantee you people somewhere are trying to figure out how to govern energy systems, communication sites, health policy, economic policy, political campaigns, and nations in ways that account for our digital dependencies, something the 18th century thinkers were spared. Governance questions are broad, although 3 of them are easy to ask, hard to answer and have shaped my professional career. Those three questions are:

1. What's public?
2. What's private? 
3. Who decides?
   

Here are two very different approaches to thinking about these issues. The first is a collection of essays on governance called "The Digitalist Papers," a nod to John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton's work on The Federalist Papers. Unlike Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, these authors don't bother hiding their identity, nor have they taken to publishing the papers in serialized fashion in major news outlets. The Digitalist Papers also (gasp!) include essays from women and people of color, though they rely on Ivory Tower scholars and not political decision-makers. The whole thing was cooked up at Stanford. As in all things digital or political, knowing who wrote the code is important.

The second example is a study of governance in the fediverse (you know, Mastodon etc.) by two prolific users of it. Erin Kissane and Darius Kazemi undertook the study and wrote it up. They use the fediverse and write about it. They are not ivory tower academics though they're day jobs bring them into very close proximity. It's a study of "what is" and "what could be," where the digitalist papers are a collection of "should be's."

The fediverse in relation to the majority of the web is a good analog for civil society and its relationship to the marketplace in phsyical space. There are important lessons to be found in these analyses for thinking about the reality of civil society and democracy today.

The Fediverse study is here.

The Digitalist Papers are here.

The Connective Tissue of Democracy

Photo by Bioscience Image Library by Fayette Reynolds on Unsplash

The connective tissue of American civil society—the associations, clubs, congregations, and other spaces where people gather and experience collective life—has deteriorated significantly in recent decades, diminishing community resilience and jeopardizing the health of our democracy. While the roots of this civic crisis are complex, remedial action is imperative. How can we revitalize the intermediary institutions that enable civic life to flourish?

This virtual event, co-hosted by Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS) and the University of Virginia’s Karsh Institute of Democracy, will examine how policymakers, philanthropists, and civic leaders can contribute to this effort. Sam Pressler will present on the newly released Connective Tissue report—a policy framework for government's role in building connection in American communities—and a panel of experts will discuss the possibilities and challenges of civic renewal. 

The panel, moderated by Aaron Horvath, a Sociologist and Research Scholar at Stanford PACS, will include: 

• Pete Davis —Writer and filmmaker; Co-director of Join or Die, a documentary on Robert Putnam and the decline of American community 

 • Josh Fryday — California’s Chief Service Officer; Appointed by Governor Newsom to lead service, volunteer, and civic engagement efforts throughout California 

• Hollie Russon Gilman — Political Scientist; Senior Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program where she leads the Participatory Democracy Project 

The event will be held on Tuesday, October 29, from 4:00-5:30PM (ET) / 1:00-2:30PM (PT). See the Connective Tissue policy framework here: https://theconnectivetissue.us/framework
The virtual event is on Tuesday, October 29, from 4:00-5:30PM (ET) / 1:00-2:30PM (PT).

 

You can register here for more info and a link to the zoom.

Fifteen years of Blueprints in 8:48

Thanks to Google's NotebookLM, here are two fake voices discussing 15 years of Blueprints. 

Let me know what you think. I'm playing around with this for #Blueprint25.

Civil society and AI Bots - part one of ?

                                                Photo by Andy Kelly from Unsplash

People are making bots of themselves.They're probably calling them AI assistants, and are making them DIY or by using sites such as Trint ot HappyScribe (for use on video conference meetings such as Zoom or Teams).  

Keith McNulty made a bot of himself to make sense of his own work (I'm using NotebookLM for this purpose. Here, for example, is 8 minutes of AI voices discussing 15 years of Blueprints). Other people make bots of themselves to enable 24/7 contact.

So, what do you do if you're planning a meeting or a conference or a community gathering and someone asks to send their bot instead of their physical self? If your organization already has a policy in place for this - and you've considered the impact of having a mix of bots and people at your events (on both the bots and the people) - feel free to share them so we can all learn. I can still host things on DigitalImpact.IO for civil society organizations around the world to use.

Here are some additional thoughts on this coming phenomenon from DataEthics.eu.

I have a new book coming out in July 2025 on AI And Assembly, written with an amazing group of collaborators, that looks at how AI is changing how we associate and assemble. This is just one example.

New (nonacademic) books on philanthropy

Here are two new books - one by one of my favorite novelists - that I'll be reading in the next few weeks. Thoughts and feels will be noted in #Blueprint25 (Yes, I'm working on it. My health makes it harder. Stay tuned - doing my best to get the 16th annual one done.)

Rumaan Alam, author of Leave the World Behind, has a new book out called Entitlement. The LA Review of Books says: 

"We follow Brooke Orr, a dynamic woman handling a massive responsibility—managing an octogenarian billionaire’s earthly fortune and assisting him in giving it all away. Taut, unsettling, and alive to the seductive distortions of money, Entitlement is a riveting tale for our new gilded age, a story that confidently considers questions about need and worth, race and privilege, philanthropy and generosity, passion and obsession. It is a provocative, propulsive novel about the American imagination." Sign me up.

And, in the "tradition" of Anand Giridharadas's Winner Takes All, a World Economic Forum insider, Thierry Malleret takes on the globalist crowd with his self-published work, Deaths At Davos. Semafor Media describes the book this way: 

"The self-published thriller centers on The Circle, a WEF-like institution consumed by self-interest whose cardinal rule is that “money always has the last word.” The Circle is “a handsomely sophisticated comfort zone for people who had already changed the world, not necessarily for the better, and wanted to cover their tracks.”

If you prefer TV,  Maya Rudolph, whom I adore, is back with more of Loot, the TV show about a billionaire's widow and the fortune she tries to put to good use. At least she'll be doing this when she's not being Kamala Harris on SNL.

 

 

The GOP threat to civil society

                                                    Photo by Richard Stovall on Unsplash

Democracy in the USA is not "naturally" withering, it is under attack. And the call(s) are coming from both inside the house and outside, domestic and foreign. One source of attack is the Republican Party. Threats can't be beaten if they aren't named. I strongly suggest both foundations, their associations, and their media stop "both-sidesing" this and call out the threats to the sector that are coming from their own.

First and foremost, Donald Trump's campaign has declared it will be "taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments" to fund its own propaganda-driven alternative university. Now, big private universities don't usually inspire a lot of sympathy, I get that. I'm an alum of them and they don't make me all warm and fuzzy. But be clear, none of this has anything to do with anti-semitism (which gets a quick shout-out in the document linked above). It's part of a sustained campaign against perceived liberal or left(ish) civil society. The presumed candidate of the Republican Party is promising/threatening to seize endowment assets from universities it doesn't like. I'll say it again, the GOP is running on a platform that involves taking funds away from nonprofits it doesn't like. If that doesn't make the philanthropy industry stand up and take notice (and, one might hope, action), I can't think of a bigger threat that the sector would be ignoring. And this from a candidate who's been repeatedly sued for the way he ran his nominal foundation. 

All nonprofits and foundations, their professional and lobbying associations, and the media dedicated to them should decry a platform such as proposed in Agenda47. And, what's that I hear? Yup, crickets.

Or worse, InsidePhilanthropy worked hard on this rundown of funding for democracy, (behind their paywall yell at them, not me). It's good reporting on a survey done by the Democracy Fund that focuses on giving to democracy efforts and causes related to it. But it counts funding on just one side of the equation. It counts funding by funders in the political center or on the left. It doesn't count the other side - there is no accounting of efforts to undermine democracy. The story mentions book bans, school board fights, and transgender bathroom hysteria as examples of undemocratic philanthropy. But it neither tallies the amount of philanthropic dollars spent on these issues nor names any of the funders. That's not helpful. Those are philanthropic dollars going to efforts that undermine democracy - and they're by no means all the way such money is being spent (Supreme Court favors, anyone? Social media trolls, disinformation, and campaigns such as that run by Christopher Rufo with help from Congresswoman Stefanik to oust female college presidents of color? The list is long)

Attacks on democracy are secretively well-funded even as they appear to be led by grassroots individuals. Counting the funding on the pro-side and not on the attack-side makes it seem as if the  attacks are just part of the process of democracy. And that may be true. But if its true its true in the sense that democracy will always have critics, and some of those will be doing their best to destroy democratic participation by those they don't like.

One of the two political parties in this country is running on a platform that includes seizing endowment assets. Yes, the campaign platform of the GOP is "vote for us and we'll put government in charge of higher education and destroy some of the nation's longest-lived independent institutions. For all the vitriol these universities attract, there's a helluva lot of rich people trying hard to get their kids admitted to them).You may not feel sorry for Harvard, but you'd be a fool for thinking this is just an attack on the Crimson. That's what the GOP wants you to think, but it's not (all) they want to do.

If foundations, philanthropy, and nonprofits don't stand up to defend civil society from Agenda47 before November, they'll deserve what happens, post-election.