Module 0: The Institutional Void

Archaeobytology 300: Institution Building & Strategic Infrastructure

Module Overview

Core Question: What happens when the Archaeobytologist retires, gets acquired, or runs out of funding?

Learning Objective: Students will analyze existing digital preservation institutions and identify their structural failure modes—then propose architectural solutions grounded in The Three Pillars.

Time: Week 1-2 (introductory module)

The Problem Statement

The 200-level taught you to be a competent individual practitioner. You can excavate artifacts, perform Triage, maintain an Archive, and forge at the Anvil. But consider these scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Single Point of Failure

Case: The Internet Archive holds 800+ billion web pages in a single building in San Francisco. Brewster Kahle has acknowledged this is "one flood away" from catastrophic loss.

Question: Why hasn't this been solved? (Hint: It's not technical—it's institutional.)

Scenario 2: The Corporate Landlord

Case: Yahoo shut down GeoCities in 2009, deleting millions of homepages. Users had no recourse—the Terms of Service gave Yahoo absolute power. Archive Team heroically rescued terabytes, but most was lost.

Question: How do you build preservation infrastructure that can't be "shut down by decree"?

Scenario 3: The Fragmentation Problem

Case: Mastodon promised decentralized social networking. Today, thousands of instances exist—many run by volunteers on personal servers. When admins burn out or lose interest, instances shut down, deleting all user data.

Question: How do you build decentralized systems that are actually resilient (not just ideologically pure)?

Scenario 4: The Speculative Capture

Case: Web3 promised "own your data" and "sovereign identity." Instead, it became a casino. ENS domains are speculation vehicles. DAOs collapsed into plutocracy. The infrastructure remains, but the ideals were abandoned.

Question: How do you build systems that resist capture by rent-seekers?

Core Reading

Primary Text

Kahle, B. (1997). "Preserving the Internet." Scientific American, 276(3), 82–83.

Discussion Questions: 1. Kahle wrote this in 1997. What has the Internet Archive accomplished? What problems remain unsolved? 2. The Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. What are the advantages and constraints of this structure? 3. If the San Francisco building burned down tomorrow, what percentage of digital history would be lost?

Secondary Texts

Doctorow, C. (2023). "The Internet Con: Seizing the Means of Computation." (Chapter 1: "The Memex Method")

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. (Introduction: "Home or Exile in the Digital Future")

Analysis Question: Both Doctorow and Zuboff diagnose platform problems. Do their proposed solutions address institutional sustainability? Why or why not?

Lecture: A Taxonomy of Institutional Failure Modes

Failure Mode 1: The Heroic Founder Problem

Pattern: A single visionary builds critical infrastructure. When they retire/die/pivot, the work collapses.

Examples: - Aaron Swartz's death and its impact on digital rights activism - Small Mastodon instances when admins burn out - Personal archives that become "link rot" when maintainers move on

Root Cause: Work is tied to individual identity, not institutional structure.

Three Pillars Analysis: - ❌ Declaration: The work is the founder (no separation of identity) - ❌ Connection: Community exists around person, not shared infrastructure - ❌ Ground: Assets often personally owned (domains, servers, data)

Solution Pattern: Institutionalize the practice before the practitioner is gone.

Failure Mode 2: The Platform Landlord Problem

Pattern: Users build on rented ground. Landlord changes terms, raises rent, or shuts down entirely. Users have no recourse.

Examples: - GeoCities shutdown (2009) - Google Reader shutdown (2013) - Vine shutdown (2016) - Twitter's API restrictions (2023) - Reddit's API pricing killing third-party apps (2023)

Root Cause: Centralized control + Terms of Service giving platforms absolute power.

Three Pillars Analysis: - ❌ Declaration: Identity tied to platform (@username) - ❌ Connection: Social graph owned by platform - ❌ Ground: Users are tenants, not owners

Solution Pattern: Build on sovereign ground with portable identity/data.

Failure Mode 3: The Volunteer Burnout Problem

Pattern: Decentralized system relies on volunteer labor. No economic sustainability. Nodes fail when volunteers exhaust goodwill or resources.

Examples: - Small Mastodon instances shutting down - IRC networks fragmenting - Archive Team's reliance on heroic volunteer scraping - Open-source maintainer burnout (see: Heartbleed, Log4j)

Root Cause: Ideological commitment to "free as in beer" without sustainable economic model.

Three Pillars Analysis: - ✅ Declaration: Often sovereign (self-hosted) - ⚠️ Connection: Fragmented, inconsistent - ❌ Ground: Technically owned, economically unsustainable

Solution Pattern: Design economic models that compensate labor without becoming extractive.

Failure Mode 4: The Speculative Capture Problem

Pattern: Technology designed for sovereignty gets financialized. Rent-seekers flood in. Original mission abandoned.

Examples: - Web3/crypto promising decentralization, delivering speculation - ENS domains as NFT status symbols - DAOs captured by whales/VCs - "Decentralized" platforms with centralized VC control

Root Cause: Capital flows to speculation, not infrastructure.

Three Pillars Analysis: - ⚠️ Declaration: Technically possible, practically gatekept by cost - ❌ Connection: Community replaced by market - ⚠️ Ground: Technically decentralized, economically centralized

Solution Pattern: Structural protections against financialization (governance limits, non-transferable ownership).

Failure Mode 5: The Complexity Collapse Problem

Pattern: System requires too much technical expertise. Only specialists can participate. When specialists leave, system becomes unmaintainable.

Examples: - IndieWeb's technical barriers (webhooks, microformats, self-hosting) - Mastodon's confusing instance selection - IPFS's complexity vs. HTTP's simplicity - Bitcoin node requirements (storage, bandwidth)

Root Cause: Technical purity prioritized over usability/accessibility.

Three Pillars Analysis: - ✅ Declaration: Technically sovereign - ⚠️ Connection: Limited to technical elite - ⚠️ Ground: Owned but requires expertise to maintain

Solution Pattern: "Progressive sovereignty"—easy defaults that can deepen to full control.

Framework: The Institutional Resilience Matrix

For any preservation/sovereignty institution, evaluate across these dimensions:

| Dimension | Questions | Three Pillars Mapping | |-----------|-----------|----------------------| | Governance | Who makes decisions? How are leaders chosen? Can they be removed? | Declaration (sovereignty) | | Economic | How is it funded? Is the model sustainable for 10+ years? | Ground (ownership) | | Technical | Who controls the infrastructure? Is it decentralized? Can it be shut down? | Ground (control) | | Social | How does community form? Are relationships algorithmic or intentional? | Connection (community) | | Legal | What jurisdiction? What protections against capture/seizure? | Ground (legal ownership) | | Succession | What happens when founders leave? Is knowledge transferable? | All three (institutional continuity) |

Grading Scale: - 🟢 Resilient: Survives founder departure, platform hostility, and economic shifts - 🟡 Fragile: Vulnerable to one failure mode - 🔴 Brittle: Single point of failure exists

Case Study Analysis (In-Class Activity)

Students will analyze one institution using the Resilience Matrix:

Option 1: The Internet Archive

- Governance: Non-profit, board of directors, Brewster Kahle as founder/leader - Economic: Donations + digital lending revenue - Technical: Centralized (San Francisco building) - Social: Open access, volunteer scanners - Legal: US 501(c)(3), subject to US copyright law - Succession: Unknown (what happens when Kahle retires?)

Student Task: Identify the biggest vulnerability and propose a structural fix.

Option 2: Mastodon/Fediverse

- Governance: No central authority, instance admins have absolute power - Economic: Volunteer labor + Patreon donations - Technical: Federated (instances can intercommunicate) - Social: Instance-based communities - Legal: Each instance subject to its own jurisdiction - Succession: When admin burns out, instance shuts down

Student Task: Design a governance model that preserves federation without fragility.

Option 3: ENS (Ethereum Name Service)

- Governance: DAO with token voting - Economic: Registration fees + speculation - Technical: Blockchain-based (no central authority can seize) - Social: Market-driven, financialized - Legal: Unclear jurisdiction (advantage and vulnerability) - Succession: Self-sustaining smart contracts

Student Task: How do you prevent speculative capture while maintaining decentralization?

Option 4: Indie Web

- Governance: Loose community, no formal structure - Economic: Personal expense (domains, hosting) - Technical: Self-hosted on personal domains - Social: Webmentions + blogrolls - Legal: Each person subject to their own jurisdiction - Succession: Works survive as long as domains renewed

Student Task: How do you lower barriers to entry without sacrificing sovereignty?

Assignment: Diagnosing Institutional Failure

Objective: Apply the Resilience Matrix to a real-world case of digital infrastructure failure or fragility.

Part 1: Case Selection

Choose one: 1. A platform that shut down (GeoCities, Vine, Google Reader, Ello, etc.) 2. A decentralized system that fragmented (IRC, Usenet, Mastodon instances) 3. A Web3 project that failed its mission (Terra/Luna, failed DAOs, etc.) 4. A preservation project that collapsed (defunct archives, abandoned museums)

Part 2: Analysis (1500 words)

Using the Resilience Matrix, diagnose: 1. What failure mode(s) caused the collapse/fragility? 2. Which of The Three Pillars was violated or missing? 3. Was the failure technical, economic, social, or governance-related? 4. Could it have been prevented? How?

Part 3: Redesign (1000 words)

Propose a structural alternative that would have prevented the failure: 1. Governance model that aligns with Declaration 2. Economic model that sustains Ground ownership 3. Social model that builds intentional Connection 4. Technical architecture that resists single points of failure 5. Legal/policy protections against capture or shutdown

Grading Criteria:

- ✅ Thorough application of Resilience Matrix - ✅ Clear Three Pillars analysis - ✅ Feasibility of proposed redesign (not just idealism) - ✅ Engagement with course readings - ✅ Original thinking (not just summarizing case)

Discussion Questions for Seminar

1. The Internet Archive Dilemma: Is it better to have a centralized, well-funded institution (fragile but functional) or a distributed, volunteer network (resilient but chaotic)? Can you have both?

2. The Mastodon Paradox: Decentralization was supposed to prevent platform capture. Why did it create new fragility (admin burnout, instance shutdowns)? Is there a "third way"?

3. The Web3 Question: Did Web3 fail because of bad actors (speculation, scams) or because of structural flaws (cost, complexity, governance)? Could a "non-financialized blockchain" work?

4. The Succession Problem: Why don't more digital projects plan for founder departure? Is it ego, oversight, or something structural about how we fund/build?

5. The Economics Question: Can you build lasting infrastructure without either surveillance capitalism (ad model) or speculation (crypto model)? What's the alternative?

Module Deliverables

By the end of Module 0, students will have:

1. ✅ Completed Reading Responses (3 texts, 200 words each) 2. ✅ Case Study Analysis (presented in-class using Resilience Matrix) 3. ✅ Institutional Failure Assignment (2500 words total: diagnosis + redesign) 4. ✅ Three Pillars Fluency (ability to analyze any institution through this lens)

This sets the foundation for the rest of the course: Every subsequent module asks you to design an institution that avoids these failure modes.

Looking Ahead: Module 1

Next week, we move from diagnosis to design. Module 1: The Business of the Archive asks:

"You've identified why institutions fail. Now design one that doesn't."

You'll create a preservation organization with a 10-year sustainability plan that embodies The Three Pillars—proving that Archive work can be both principled and enduring.

Instructor Notes

- Tone: This module should feel urgent, not academic. These are real problems affecting real preservation work. - Balance: Critique institutions without nihilism. Frame as "here's what we can learn" not "everything is doomed." - Practical: Students should leave thinking "I could actually start this" not "this is impossible." - Guest Speaker Idea: Invite Internet Archive staff or Mastodon instance admin to discuss real operational challenges.

End of Module 0