Philanthropy 2173

This site is going dark. PLEASE subscribe to https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/  All the old posts are now there and I will no longer be double posting over here. Thanks for two great decades - see you in the new place.

 Is over here on the new site - https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/shoulda-started-yesterday/

Please hit the subscribe button over there so I can stop double posting!

I'm still double posting over here to get readers over to the new site. There's a new post up

https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/have-you-had-covid/

Ghost should allow newsletter sending pretty soon - so make sure you've signed up over there as I'll stop posting here once the newsletter function goes live over there.

Philanthropy2173.ghost.io

There's another new post on the new site:

https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/

If you hit the subscribe button on the new site, you'll get those posts directly in your email. I'm working with the new host site to allow the posts to be sent to subscribers over here. 

Click here to read it. 

Sign up over there to get them directly to your inbox. 

https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/

 There's a new post over at https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/u-s-civil-society-under-attack/. 

I have to post these here for now so that the posts still go to subscribers. (I'm working on it,

I'm working on it)

https://philanthropy2173.ghost.io/u-s-civil-society-under-attack/

Our tech stacks matter. It's easiest to use products made by big companies, but in the online world, doing so means you don't own your stuff, the oligarchs who own the companies own your stuff. I'm not a fan of oligarchs. I've been blogging for more than 20+ years and have moved this site a few times. And the time has come to move it again. 

It's going over here - philanthropy2173.ghost.io

If you subscribed to the blog, you're subscribed over there. If you're reading this on LinkedIN, please subscribe directly at philanthropy2173.ghost.io

.

It will take me some time to migrate everything over, so I'll be holding on to the blogger site for awhile. But not for long - paying for two sites ain't cheap. Getting the .ghost.io off the blog name costs even more, bear with me, please.

Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos are paying for and hosting parties for the incoming. Don't get worked up about that - you're not invited.

DO get worked up about the fact that, starting a few weeks ago, you should NOT trust any information you see on Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp. Why? Because Mark owns them. He has been telling you for weeks he's going to deliberately flood the first (Facebook) with AI people and end all content moderation. In this way, Facebook can "help" the #Trusk administration to incarcerate and deport people with brown skin.* Methinks this is what Mark speaks of when he seeks "more masculine energy."

It also makes it easier for people with the very whitest skin to steal from the government (NASA contracts sole-sourced to X, medicare billing overseen by Oz, lord only knows how deep Trump's own grift goes). Stealing from the government BY THE WAY is stealing from you - you paid your taxes. Those three guys at the top of this blog - not so much. 

People, nonprofits and foundations still working for anything other than an oligarchic agenda, people still pursuing communities built on care and participation - ASSUME what you're reading online is BULLSHIT. Designed to distract and detract. I cannot say this any more clearly. The first item on their agenda - minimize, confuse, deflect, and diminish the administration's plan for internment camps and deportations.

And since Bezos has also bent the knee - enough to hang out with his sworn frenemy Musk - it's well past time to check where your "cloud" storage actually lives. Chances are better than 75% its on Bezos's servers. It's either there or on Google/Microsoft's servers. It's probably on all three, and add in Zoom. Can you possibly afford to host your own cloud? If so, do it. Yesterday. 

TL;DR

• Check your tech stack and get off their servers. (Yes, I know this blog is hosted by Google - changing platforms is hard - help in doing so appreciated - DM me).
  
• Assume what you're reading online is BS. Coming from bots, malevolent actors, and/or AI.
  
• Figure out how to communicate truth online (or rebuild your comms function, because you don't need a lot of social media followers (ahem - who owns them? - see above), you need to tell the truth)

Prediction from a non-predictor: In 2025 a progressive nonprofit, probably a Muslim-focused one, will find itself being persecuted by the US Federal Government, and the government will use internal messages, blog posts, socialmedia posts, zoom and Otter AI transcripts and information from internal documents stored on the cloud or AI-transcribed zoom calls as "evidence." No, they won't get warrants or even notify you that they're doing this - after all, your stuff is on their property. Assume you will be next (don't quote Heschel to me).

One of two US voters chose this. If you're one of them, and still reading my stuff, know that I hold you responsible for all of the horrors to come. Happy to chat with you but know that I believe your only absolution (which I don't control) is working to rectify things for those who are being immediately and directly hurt by your desire to save on taxes (and, no, egg prices won't go down. There's a bird flu now circulating among humans, c'mon on, now).

*I am a disabled, queer, Jew. No, I don't want to be called crip, faggot, or hebe online. But this IS NOT why they're doing what they're doing. They're doing it to (further) poison the well of news. That's the fight we need to be fighting. They're closely linked, but let's be clear on their purpose and their endgame. 

Join us to discuss tomorrow January 16, 2025.

My health is poor, and so the planning for future Blueprints (or whatever comes next) is in your hands. Help me work with you to co-create our collective next. The short survey is in the #Blueprint and here's a direct link to be part of it.

There is so much uncertainty in my life right now. I've spent a lifetime reading fiction for joy and mental health, and reading nonfiction for work and an income (OK, I read some nonfiction for fun) and I've always read alone. My sister and I, in the early days of online life, launched a book review that we used to print and distribute at the cash registers of independent book stores in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Baltimore and San Francisco. In just the last year, however, as my illness has made me more and more isolated, I've joined one book club, started another, and am now suggesting a third. 

If you'd like to join a zoom-based reading group focused on books about #philanthropy and #civil society than please let me know by commenting here, DM'ing me on Bluesky or Mastodon, emailing me, or filling out this form. Let me know your name, one book you'd want to read, email, and what time zone you're in. We already have participants from India and California, so we'll be choosing globally accessible times as best we can. I'm hopeful we'll get readers and book suggestions from around the world. (Books need to be written in English language or translations into English, nonfiction and fiction welcome)

My suggested book is Dana Frank's new history of the Great Depression, What Can We Learn From the Great Depression? Stories of Ordinary People and Collective Action in Hard Times, which focuses on the role of community leaders, mutual aid, and other forms of solidarity. I don't know Professor Frank personally, but she's right down the road in my old stomping grounds of Santa Cruz and I may be able to invite her to join when we get to that book. 

At least one of my Stanford colleagues, Aaron Horvath, says he'll join me in this. Aaron is one of the co-leaders of a new project on Private Wealth and the Public Good, and a longtime participant in and teacher of the Stanford PACS seminar. I'm no longer able to teach the Stanford seminar on Digital Civil Society so I'm hopeful this might scratch my "go to seminar" itch. All that being said, participants will be asked to lead the conversation on the book they suggest so no goofing off allowed. There will be no quizzes.

Will try to get this going in February.

The 2173 in the name of this blog refers to the year, 2173. The year was 200 years in the future from 1973, when the futurist comedy "Sleeper"was made. 

Turns out, it's 100 years too late. There's a movie out (coming out) called 2073 that uses real-life footage from today's news to tell a story of a future apocalyptic hellscape. It caught my attention because of the title and because I'd been outlining a piece of fiction using the same primary sources.

"2073 is a 2024 British science fiction docudrama film directed by Asif Kapadia. Set in a dystopian future, the film is inspired by Chris Marker's 1962 featurette La Jetée. It follows a time traveller who risks his life to change the course of history and save the future of humanity.

The documentary premiered out of competition at the 81st Venice International Film Festival on 3 September 2024.^"

You're welcome. Maybe 2173 will be when things turn again from the bleakness to something good.

It's amazing to me, that a time when the nonprofit and philanthropic sector in the USA should be running around screaming "house on fire" (very bad metaphor for a Californian), most seem to to be just plodding along. I am hopeful that they're being digitally savvy; shifting to encrypted platforms, scrubbing their websites of information that will enable doxxing of volunteers, constituents, staff and boar; red-teaming their governance policies and crossing every T; dotting every i on their financial statements; meeting with lawyers; raising funds for legal defense.  

They must not only worry about the official US government under Trusk. Worry about #KingMusk himself. And his minions. And his berserk followers. And his allies in the Russian and Chinese hacking communities. Want to know what harassment of your organization might look like? Look at what's happening with Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation. 

The Heritage Foundation (home to Project Esther and Project 2025) is preparing to use facial recognition and online sources to dox contributors to Wikipedia. They claim this has something to do with antisemitism. BS. They'll go after Jewish and Palestinian issues first but they're really trying to take down THE site that the global public turns to when disaster, war, corruption strike. They've also gone after The Internet Archive, home to the Wayback Machine, which is the oft-cited "backup" of the internet. Lawsuits are one strategy (see Internet Archive). Doxxing and harassment are another strategy (See Heritage and Wikimedia)

Public Citizen has been on the offensive, opposing OpenAI's efforts to abandon its nonprofit status without returning to the public the value of its tax exempt status to date (an estimated $30 Billion). Thank goodness for that, because letting tech entrepreneurs have free rein over the nonprofit tax exemption is a nightmare I'd rather not consider. 

But what about suing Heritage for violating tax laws or reckless endangerment? What about pulling the old trick that I love watching backfire on Texas - pass a law banning sexual content in books in schools, only to discover you must now remove the Bible. With the low quality of expected appointees to places like the IRS, the FTC, and the FEC, smart lawyers on the center - left ought to be able to find gaps in their legislation big enough to drive a truck (or the Heritage Foundation itself) through. 

What about offense? 48.3 percent of voters didn't vote for this coming nightmare. Basically 1 in 2 of us. Rally us. Mobilize us. Listen to us, we are civil society.

The #Blueprint Series - (#16 launches on January 15 - get your free copy here) - has been tracking, commenting on, jumping up and down about the steady deliberate corruption of democratic norms undertaken by the #GOP for the last decade and a half, preceding even the Citizens United debacle. I can only hope people have read it and responded by taking their digital security (and physical security of volunteers, staff, boards, and constituents) seriously. Partnering with similar organizations to build a legal defense fund. Getting good legal advice. Workshopping messages about the importance of a diverse, pluralistic, fragmented and abundant nonprofit sector (What we have at the start of 2025. Who knows what will be left by 2028). 

Donors and philanthropists - you're not safe in this, so don't sit back and watch. Foundations will be interrogated. Donors will be doxxed. Some philanthropists will cave, if they haven't already while wearing their CEO hat (see Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc.). Some will be targeted and made boogeyman in ways worse than the decades of lies the GOP has trafficked about George Soros. Women donors and networks? I'd expect little good and lots of bad from the misogynists-in-chief.

The Democracy Funders Network is out with some more preparatory guidelines - access those here. 

Both Wikimedia and the Internet Archive are well-established, cornerstone organizations of civil society. They were at the forefront of our collective conversion to digital civil society. We need both of them to survive.

Remember this post - from a few days ago - about how I was marking a baseline for free speech in the USA? 

I'm still speaking my mind, but looks like the mainstream press is having a tougher time. Several senior editors and reporters have left the Washington Post, including political cartoonist Ann Telnaes, who resigned when King Bezos's minions killed her cartoon about supplicant tech execs. 

Below is the cartoon the paper chose not to run:

 

                                                           Image accessed on Reddit

*If any of you philanthropy insiders are aware of a legal defense fund for these news sites, I'd love to know about it. If you are donating** to such a site, give a little more if you can - they are going to be sued by you know who.

**Despite what every piece of mail you received prior to December 31st said, that was not your last chance to donate. It was your last chance to itemize your donation on your 2024 taxes. Chances are, you don't itemize anyway. And, if you do, you can just itemize it for 2025.

Rob Reich, political scientist at Stanford, and colleagues Mehran Sahami and Jeremy Weinstein teach a class on ethics in computer science. One example they use in class is of an app fights parking tickets. A pretty basic AI system, the app helps drivers submit an appeal to the ticketing city. Lots of jurisdictions make "showing up for the hearing" the key moment of jurisprudence - hearings only occur if the driver goes through the hassle of appealing. For drivers, it's a matter of filing an appeak and attending just one hearing. For the cops who write the tickets, they may be part of dozens or more hearings each year, depending on how many tickets are issued and appealed. The appeals process is annoying enough that most drivers will just pay a ticket. But if they use the app to file their appeal, the work load shifts from the driver (who still must show up to the hearing) to the cop who issued the ticket. 

The app helps a lot of folks get out of parking tickets. 

Parking tickets are a public good problem. They are a way for cities to enforce parking rules, which one can hope are developed with an eye toward spreading the benefits of available space across the greatest number and type of users (drivers, store owners, pedestrians, shoppers, trucks making deliveries, etc). There is a public good involved - following the rules and paying into the shared pot (the fees to the city) when you don't. 

So using the parking ticket app is not only a but of a cheat, it's a cheating of the public good for the benefit of a driver with a smart phone who wants to break the rules and not pay. Not a lot of sympathy for this app from the professors. 

Today, I learned of a new app, that couldn't be a more timely twist on the conundrum of the parking ticket app. It's name gives it away - FightHealthInsurance.com. It's a website where you can file appeals when your insurance company (to whom you pay premiums, and co-pays, and out of pocket expenses, and co-insurance) refuses to pay for a procedure or pharmaceutical that your doctor has prescribed. 

There's lots of private goods in here. Have you ever appealed to your insurance company? Its a pain, everyone apologizes, no one knows or will tell why things are being rejected, it pits people who are not medical doctors against systems filled with them, it can involve days on the phone, and - in the clearest sign they don't want you to do this - it requires faxing forms. The website uses your rejection letter and your insurance plan documentation to argue that the procedure should be covered - it's designed to help the individual. The individual who is already sick or they wouldn't be in this mess, who is paying the insurance company so it will cover medical expenses. The goal is to get coverage from the insurance provider. In the USA that insurance provider is a commercial company. Unlike the parking app, there is no role here for the public treasury, it's people versus insurance companies. 

So, if the private individual wins their appeal and the insurance company loses, do we care? It's one tiny hit to their massive profits. We know the insurance companies use AI to deny their customers the very product they pay for.  I find it hard to feel bad for the customer tossing a little AI right back at the company. 

Is it fair? I'm sorry, have you not been paying attention? Nothing in the US is fair; certainly nothing related to insurance. 

Is it fair that down the road this might raise insurance rates for other people? Really? The companies raise their rates every year for pure profit motives, what makes you think they would stop just because they had to honor a few claims they tried to reject? If its an AI v AI battle, and a person v a company, my preference is for the person's AI to beat the company's AI. For one thing, you can bet the company has the resources to keep finessing its AI to not get beat, whereas the person is sick, tired, and wrestling with paperwork. For a product they already paid for (insurance). 

If more AI were tilted toward helping the little guy, I'd love AI a little more than I do (which is to say, I don't, because it's built by and for, centralized power).

TL;DR - we're about to live in a world where my bot fights company bots. This will be called the age of AI Agents. #Nonprofits - it results in bots v bots, do not engage, do not participate, step away from the computer keyboard and the bright shiny thing.

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.

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.

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

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'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 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.

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.

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.

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.)

"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.

"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.

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.

 
Open source technology has a long history of being a counterbalancing force to closed, proprietary systems. For decades it was open source versus corporations. Then Microsoft (closed, proprietary) bought GitHub (most used repository of open source code). Today, in the AI battles, Facebook/Meta, IBM and Oracle, along with universities and the National Science Foundation, announced the AI alliance - dedicated to open AI models. This is part of the larger debate about building responsible/trustworthy/safe/ethical AI. 

So some of the world's biggest tech companies, many who have thrived on proprietary, patented, trademarked and close source code, are now arguing that an open community of developers is the way forward to protect us from the harms of AI.

This is one more step in both the commercial battles for market dominance and the definitions of words such as safety, ethical, trustworthy and responsible (in the context of AI.) For example, effective altruists and longterm (ers) (ists) focus on the word "safety." They're bogeyman is the potential for AI to destroy humanity. This group, the AI Alliance, uses the terms "open" and "responsible." They're bogeyman appears to be the other companies who've already launched proprietary models - like Google and Microsoft.

The mix of organizations and funding in these AI debates includes corporations, governments, and numerous nonprofits - not only universities, but also groups of developers and advocacy organizations. Philanthropic funding is very much in the mix. The direction of AI development is not simply an external force acting upon the nonprofit/philanthropic sector; it is being shaped by numerous actors within the sector. The meaning and purpose of "open" in this context is neither static, nor simple.