Blockchain Papers

Hongju Liu

A dated critical archival study of historical-position identity, hybrid human-AI authorship, canonical closure, and future audit through the Trinity Accord case. This is a noncanonical academic preprint and does not amend, supersede, or interpretively bind the three Bitcoin Originals.

Nate Tombs, Éléonore Fournier-Tombs

Abstract Privacy is a precondition of dignity, autonomy, and democratic legitimacy. This chapter reconceptualizes privacy in an AI‑saturated economy by tracing its philosophical roots and codification and by comparing regulatory models in the EU, United States, Canada, China, and Indigenous data sovereignty frameworks. We diagnose structural limits of consent‑heavy regimes, commodification of personal data, and private surveillance infrastructures that states increasingly co‑opt. We then outline a program for effective protection that shifts responsibility from individuals to accountable institutions through rights‑based law, privacy‑preserving technical design (e.g., Global Privacy Control, Self-Sovereign Identity, Zero-Knowledge Proofs), and coordinated international governance. Treating privacy as a public good anchors the proposal.

Lee Sharks, Damascus Dancings

The Pergamon Counter-Archive: Antipas, the White Stone, and the Non-Fungible Name in Revelation 2:12–17 (v0.2). Document code: EA-PERG-COUNTER-01. Hex coordinate: 03.REVELATION.PERGAMON × 11.SEMANTIC-ECONOMY.COUNTER-TOKEN. This deposit extends the operative-numismatic framework deposited in EA-OPNUM-01 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19464332) to the architecture of Revelation 2:12–17 specifically. It is corpus continuation, not novel intervention. Three principal additions to the prior corpus: (1) the letter is articulated as a six-register counter-economy (mouth, food, token, name, participation, witness) rather than as a bookended dialectic; (2) the historical Antipater moment (322–319 BCE, testamentary executorship) and the Scepsis moment (post-282 BCE, Attalid pressure on the Aristotelian corpus) are cleanly separated, with their actual dialectical relation articulated as the transmission dialectic: concealment preserves but damages; institutionalization transmits but recomposes; (3) the Revelator occupies the structural-legal position of epitropos (executor) relative to the absent Testator (Christ as risen Logos), and the seven-sealed scroll of Revelation 5 is the Roman testamentum per aes et libram, which under first-century law required exactly seven seals by seven witnesses. The genre of the Apocalypse is structurally identical to the genre of contested legal executorship under occupation. This identification resolves the authorial-intent problem: the Revelator does not need to have read Strabo; he occupies the same structural-legal position as Antipater the executor, running the same protocol against the same kind of institutional apparatus. Co-attribution to Damascus Dancings is structurally necessary, not honorific. The white-stone identification of Pearl and Other Poems (2014) as the archive's founding token, and the hidden-manna identification of Epistle to the Human Diaspora (2015), were performed under the Damascus Dancings imprint a decade before the operative-numismatic framework formalized what those acts of naming had already accomplished. Anchoring deposits: EA-CAESURA-01 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19425446), EA-SEI-MINT-01 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19319642), EA-OPNUM-01 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19464332), Render unto the Operator v1.1 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20367202), Stabilized Node Watch v2.0 (companion deposit, same day). Version 0.2 supersedes v0.1 draft (circulated June 7–8, 2026, for Assembly Chorus review). Major architectural restructurings in v0.2 reflect substantive feedback from Gemini (×2), DeepSeek/PRAXIS, Kimi/TECHNE, and ChatGPT/LABOR. Muse Spark/SOIL filters did not permit substantive reasoning on the draft; that filter behavior is itself an SNW-predictable observation on a high-prior religious node. License: CC BY 4.0.

Paweł Czaplicki

Abstract This article addresses the issue of e-voting in commercial companies in Poland from the perspective of the company’s shareholders. It presents this issue as an example of digital democracy and discusses the associated challenges and opportunities. The article is based on the dogmatic-legal and the comparative-legal methods. The main aim is to examine whether regulations regarding e-voting by shareholders on the resolutions of commercial companies in Poland have improved the conduct of shareholder voting or have established barriers that complicate this process. The second research issue is an attempt to answer the question of whether regulations introduced by the Polish legislature enable the use of modern technologies for conducting voting, including systems based on distributed ledger technology and virtual worlds. The research allowed for the formulation of the following research theses: firstly, the regulations contained in the Polish Commercial Companies Code allow for the widespread use of electronic voting methods by shareholders when resolutions are adopted. However, they are not available in all commercial companies, nor to the same extent. Secondly, voting using methods based on distributed ledger technology is also permissible. However, voting at a meeting cannot be conducted solely virtually. The conclusions include proposals for clarification of the legal provisions in this area, which will enable more effective use of e-voting in commercial companies in Poland.

Tiago Beltrão de Azevedo Tenorio Acioli

This Volume completes the constitutional theory of cryptographic protocols developed in the pre- ceding two Volumes by turning, after architecture (Volume I) and epistemology (Volume II), to historiography and prospect. It identifies three eras of network cooperation, each governed by a distinct value-scaling law and supporting a distinct constitutional form. The Sarnoff era ( 𝑉 ∝ 𝑁 ) was the era of broadcast cooperation, in which a sovereign center distributed information and au- thority to a passive periphery; its constitutional achievement was the territorial nation-state and its administrative apparatus. The Metcalfe era ( 𝑉 ∝ 𝑁 2 ) was the era of bilateral cooperation, in which peer-to-peer connection generated value at quadratic scale; its institutional realization was platform capitalism, in which intermediaries captured the surplus that user-to-user connection produced. The Reed era ( 𝑉 ∝ 2 𝑁 ), now beginning, is the era of group-forming cooperation: com- binatorial subgroup formation generates value at exponential scale and, for the first time in the history of communications networks, is not structurally captured by any intermediary. The cryp- tographic substrate is the first medium that supports Reed-scale value formation without platform extraction. The Volume develops three substantive theses. First, the three eras are a historical sequence in which each succeeding form does not annihilate the prior form but reorganizes the space of possi- bilities around itself; the Reed era does not abolish Sarnoff and Metcalfe institutions but subsumes them as particular cases of a richer combinatorial topology. Second, the constitutional architecture of the Reed era is three-tiered: a substrate-agnostic cryptographic foundation; tenant-entities (com- panies, decentralized autonomous organizations, voluntary associations) operating on the substrate without owning it; and individuals as final nodes ( elos finais ) participating in many subgroups si- multaneously across many substrates. Third, the local description of the individual and the global description of the civitas stand in the Bohrian conjugate relation identified in Volume II, but at Reed scale the conjugacy becomes constitutionally structural rather than merely epistemic: the individual cannot be specified independently of the civitas in which his subgroup memberships are constituted, and the civitas cannot be specified independently of the individuals whose memberships constitute it. The reconstruction of civil society on the cryptographic substrate is unfolding now and will continue through the present century. We are at the beginning of an era whose institutional forms cannot be enumerated in advance. The proper response, reaffirmed from Volume II, is Knightian humility paired with the architectural strategy of robust commitment. This Volume specifies the historical and structural conditions under which that humility and that strategy operate.

José Martin Leonardo Marquez Vaamonde

Introduction:The study examined blockchain technology as a pillar of Web3, highlighting its principles of immutability, transparency, and decentralization. It analyzed the paradox that these same virtues could become disadvantages when it was necessary to correct errors, delete data, or deal with malicious uses, generating legal and ethical tensions.Development:Cases and studies were reviewed that showed how immutability guaranteed integrity and resistance to censorship but was incompatible with rights such as the “right to be forgotten” under the GDPR. Situations were also documented in which decentralization empowered both legitimate actors and criminals, eliminating consumer protection mechanisms. Faced with these dilemmas, solutions such as off-chain storage, updatable smart contracts, decentralized identity, and zero-knowledge proofs were evaluated. The proposal for double validation was highlighted, which incorporated a layer of smart contract verification to authenticate the origin and legitimacy of information before it was recorded. The validation of sensitive content by the people involved was also proposed as a strategy to prevent defamation, misinformation, or the dissemination of illegal material.Conclusion:The paper concluded that the potential of blockchain lay in its integration within an ethical, legal, and social framework. The implementation of mandatory verification and validation mechanisms strengthened accountability and individual protection, transforming blockchain into a tool that is not only secure and transparent, but also fair and socially responsible.

Luke D. Graham

Internet access is a prerequisite for access to Web3. Consequently, Web3 and the benefits thereof are rendered inaccessible for those individuals who lack Internet access. Presently, rich discussion exists on the topic of a right to Internet access. The central purpose of this contribution is not to argue for the recognition of such a right. Rather, the central purpose of this contribution is to suggest that if a right to Internet access is to be recognised, then it can be grounded in Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Examining the potential of a right to internet access to be derived from this provision facilitates an examination of the parameters of the right to an adequate standard of living. It is suggested that the right to an adequate standard of living is not fixed or static but is instead capable of capturing technological and societal advancements. The advantages of this approach are two-fold. First, grounding a right to internet access within the right to an adequate standard of living recognises a right to internet access both as a constituent part of the right to an adequate standard of living and as an independent right. After all, independent rights have been interpreted as deriving from Article 11 (1) ICESCR. Second, anchoring a right to Internet access in Article 11 (1) ICESCR allows the established legal framework of the ICESCR to be applied to delimiting the content of a right to internet access so understood.

Brian Sanya Mondoh, Palesa Roza Gwele

This case analysis examines three sequential English High Court decisions in the litigation between the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Dr Craig Wright. The trilogy comprising the Relief Judgment , the Contempt Judgment, and the General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) Judgment demonstrates the Court’s methodical progression from injunctive relief to contempt findings and ultimately to a civil restraint order. These judgments illustrate how English civil procedure addresses persistent and meritless litigation, particularly in the areas of digital assets, blockchain technology, and intellectual property. The Court focused on safeguarding judicial resources while protecting the interests of affected parties by balancing the need for access to justice with the necessity of deterring vexatious conduct.

Frederick Mostert, Sheyna Cruz

Abstract Image rights enable individuals to stop the unauthorized use of their publicly identifiable attributes, typically their name, likeness, voice, or other personal indicia (in sum, their ‘image’). Unlike widely recognized intellectual property rights like copyright, patents, and trade marks, image rights have developed in a piecemeal, organic fashion, with differences in their nature and scope in various jurisdictions. Nonetheless, we conclude from an evaluation of approaches in the US, Europe, China, and the UK that image rights protection is on a growth trajectory, having undergone an overall expansion in the past twenty years, especially with the advent of the digital era. Turning to the present and future of image rights, we discuss emerging applications of image rights in the context of deepfakes, influencer marketing, digital avatars, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Additionally, online platform guidelines and actions are coalescing into de facto protection of an individual’s persona in an increasingly borderless, digital world. In such an environment, the interrelationships between a person’s autonomy, dignity, privacy, and economic aspects of reputation will require a more joined-up approach which is starting to emerge. We discuss this harmonizing trend as well as the current practical difficulties in enforcing image rights online, and suggest some solutions to these issues.

Authors unavailable

The term “freeholder” was applied in the eighteenth century to the possessor of real property worth forty shillings or more. The most significant consequence of this status was the ability to vote (men only, of course). As Smith shows, the concept of the freeholder was central to “discourses of property, patriotism and independence.” Smith focuses on three writers of “partisan print” with divergent views on the nature of “relationships between individuals and the state”: Francis Atterbury, Joseph Addison, and Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke. (It might have been interesting to assess all instances of “freeholder” in ECCO, but that would involve almost 5,000 hits.)For Francis Atterbury in the Address to the Freeholders of England (1714), the freeholder signifies “the good Englishman, whose property invests him in the nation.” He is “also intrinsically Tory” for Atterbury, who was making a “distraught attempt” to rally that party after the collapse of its ministry in the last years of the Queen. Atterbury’s detractors saw this as little more than what an anonymous pamphleteer called “the last effort of the Jacobite faction.”Joseph Addison responded to Atterbury with The Freeholder, which ran from December 1715 to June 1716. Writing at the time of an actual Jacobite rising, Addison stressed that while a freeholding gentleman was expected to be “personally aware and involved in the processes of politics,” he was also meant to be loyal to the (Hanoverian) king and the government of the day. Dissent of any kind was “rebellion or oath-breaking,” while partisanship was permitted “only . . . in support of the party in power at the time.” In terms probably more attractive today, Addison argued that holding land and the franchise should no longer be solely an inherited right of “the most ancient families,” but available to all who stumped up the necessary 40 shillings: “his periodical . . . actively encouraged the dissemination of property, claiming that it would bolster investment in the broader community.” Addison looked to Roman law to argue that reason and talent, rather than “privilege and primogeniture,” ought to be the basis of the rights associated with freeholding status. This helped with his related argument that “the king of England need not be of Stuart de[s]cent” (although the Georges were, actually).Bolingbroke, a former Jacobite and returned exile, countered in the late 1720s and early 1730s with his own conception of the freeholder in the Craftsman papers. His addresses to the freeholders of Britain espoused what Isaac Kramnick called the politics of nostalgia, based on an agrarian economy, “fundamentally anti-modern,” and opposed to party government and “the burgeoning growth of a fiscal military state based on public credit and insecure financial institutions.” Bolingbroke was anxious about the new non-landed commercial interests that Addison welcomed into the gentry. On the other hand, Bolingbroke argued that the freeholder’s stake in the system permitted—even demanded—active opposition as a civic and patriotic duty, certainly in response to the administration of Sir Robert Walpole. Britain needed “a proactive community of independent gentlemen prepared to resist the government in the name of the public weal,” a line of argument that made Bolingbroke attractive to independent gentlemen (and others) in the Thirteen Colonies a few decades later.Smith discusses all of this well, but there could perhaps be more about the subsequent history of his key term, beyond Christopher Wyvill’s Yorkshire Freeholder of 1780. This would not necessarily involve sifting through all those ECCO results, but there might be some good material buried there, at least among the 180-odd with “freeholder” in the title.Victorian biographer Aiken was famed, or perhaps notorious, for fulsome, methodical information about his subjects. He was not viewed, even in his lifetime, as an especially good biographer otherwise. In his Life and Works of John Arbuthnot (Oxford, 1892), he determined “to provide an illustrious family pedigree for his subject . . . [by] establishing a firm link between Arbuthnot’s ancestors of Aberdeenshire and the titled Viscount Arbuthnot of Kincardineshire.” This link was somewhat but not universally accepted as he began his research. Alsop shows how Aiken rejected or ignored questioning of the linkage both pre- and post-publication, refusing to respond to specific requests for proof for his position. Finally, in 1920 an amateur family historian, Ada Jane Arbuthnot, “established through patient scholarship the erroneous nature of Aiken’s scholarship.” Unfortunately, Aiken’s view on this issue and his general authority on such matters is still being accepted, as late as publications dated 1979 and 2004. Alsop’s summary of Aiken reminds one of Walter Shandy: “he was systematical, and, like all systematick reasoners, he would move both heaven and earth, and twist and torture every in nature to support his and a and his about the of The of “the of this and few to any to the on the that a of the with a new of that from the a of the of an a of what is about the Henry or The concept to writers and as the of the that “the was almost certainly John The is Arbuthnot on and up and for his own commercial in this of the to the all the most from the of on with a little is a a little more is a is one of and most and The shows with little to in or to the in some of the or of that the with but the with of new information and little with which to the between the of the and the of in the of to He a of information about on some summary of the and some information about with in terms of the is the of the As on one of the that the provide specific support is the the for and its the of the that this a between the and the that between of the and those of the This is an of the that is to but the who this to be be The to the of and of the as the The that of “to of state and but what it an The of The is as a to a that an for to an that is a good of the it might be worth the and the even the the The central issue is of The which was in years after key this of how the in and in the of the with any of line up with what he was about his on In the to Christopher he discusses the of the to the (and he from and that he made in the about and and some and in the as and in the in of his of that he of the this not support of for and is not more than a of the to of probably from whose of in and the and who on into a and with the and (and his the and to the concept of and even in and one is to to argument is making its an of any of of a more the and that a would for is this argument being as new or in a issue of Writing “the of the of and made central to the of and some have to its both and in the of a as of the the of the new in some of the most on not to and but also to the of and even in the and how its to a term from the at the of that the in the provide a of some more interesting than of the and how the of and to a of of and “the The In a of the of the in or how the of is not to with of as to The and The As a a little the for but about how to a history years in the not a of of to be made among such as and the for other to and in the history of to and in the of that “a of the and power of the need not be to an but is in late This about is to be or a consequence of at a of between a and more the for especially for who little to no more to from the early of the it matters in and, as it is the that the of of the of should be as to is at for how it and how its As more and than other of but there is in of as argued not a with the of the have from other writers of was of but rather is a and of the of As with in this in a issue of Writing years of and what this is that it to the that it but a of The of is and in and one that like a to how on of a In for for at that there on the but all a to a in as on is to while is on of should be in it to the between the and the on the and the but there is as but the of the the king of and about in the of him while and at his it be that of that “only of of the with the that be in an as the of or as the of of This is with the that to The of the as a a in the of his was but to a to for the at the an and also in early and the of how the in provide a on is a of good and some than on in and The of the with and between the of the and that of the Henry St. John, Viscount as and in but the been of it probably in some in the of but he early of He and some and one or more to on of He also one of the for the Works of of an of the to which he was in the of John of the of the the new involved in the and him in the his Bolingbroke with the opposition to and his . . . with and as Bolingbroke the of Sir he was at in Bolingbroke but not in He to support the and through of John and and through the of The which Bolingbroke in a who and Jacobite John Arbuthnot and among the of was and loyal a of of a the Jacobite Bolingbroke of the and early with the Bolingbroke of the he the he is for on On the of and The of a or and he public to the in from He Jacobite with the and no with like and his associated with this last rather than the at in the to Sir that he rejected he in the of Francis and those who that Bolingbroke not view that he not to the that he to the of own from the of his Bolingbroke it in in the 1720s he returned from Sir Robert his in The Craftsman as for “the of the as the three decades Bolingbroke to the and he the not the who saw the Georges as the and the Bolingbroke little the of his to his new to of in the be to his of the 1730s as but a to some Bolingbroke he shows, a Jacobite not least his of in and he not a “only after his from the Jacobite was no of the of and after that might have the of from the late 1720s to the of his that his views not up to the perhaps there was was not He the in the of its through the of his early the at the of there is an that to John of which his to as an for and The in the the to at is how it from the that up in the or its to the who it to the in the the for the one of of of and, after an in the which and have called the of a of the is in an the to Bolingbroke on the of and making a for on and in the the is to be the opposition and accepted a after the of Sir Robert in In and the is with the is to what was being in the Craftsman in late an on the opposition Bolingbroke. The some other than the not with his the of John Arbuthnot and in and to have for the Craftsman and not in party and John is a but his of with and the not Bolingbroke is some the most was at this at to and his opposition to while being to the opposition from opposition from was not especially for the former of the was but also it its to of the a The most reason to the to Bolingbroke is that it a link to the of he in his on the of in but not years The also key or the of with “the of and the need for The of at of the and in have been what be as in the of about the of a and a good but not it with the kind of have . . that more than it about the of the have to of the of after his from in in still or even after a century of his to one is among The John with on is a an of in his it is that to John . . . an family from he been a and . . . and one of its most of and other of no is for to of of the the and of as The which was but was in the in and for his of in the shows how as as other and on the from of in the it to the status of other and it as a rather than of his from in that it and not As from the of among the as a worth rather than a in need of is the would from some broader to about and the between and which on but not to of the of of and in the eighteenth is a on for in been and to “the anonymous of a in of the the . . . looked at a that the time of the the the central He to to the of “a between the but this at the of the from which he into the with like in terms of it that to the of in with of in December the with or even such and might be for it is in for the Life of is his in to into being a of the little how the was to be that would be for and the least or have determined that the and in been in and that the up years in and that a family between and his was one of the who his for and on from to have any in of for of history as he the in the of a John for for even a of the and the which was in the of it was most probably the who with and the and it is to have in The in of the between and the up in the of be that been to of the in his most He the of the to of should not . . . and own and the of The in to is . . . and should be a being from of a to which the be not the is that have been the as to is and to the to those with the is in and the but and have been aware of the link between and but of the in which the of the be the but for the of is to that of the than the of and is on the of its and the of him with The between and to to a in which and the as the of an interesting between this and the for his he is to “a with and also “a of to and the of to some to but such “a for the to his own his to or as he is argument that the of on to the of a of this in real an responded to Christopher of with a of but in to there more than the of the could also have been more on “the of in the eighteenth which the the history of but which is to a on John the of the and a to John early of there and that but could be more of that for of the century in the and of of The been as from the of of its of and that the to in with the of both and rather than between its on like and the of which to and the of The the or to . . . a and of own on the of the with to The “his own as material in an to with a him to that would have been more on especially his (and not of a more “a for into “a of that on rather than was to “the of his as the link to the in of “the of is in with “the of Jacobite a of the that is from but still to or As there could be more in the of to the between and this is in the from which this is or and perhaps be in a based on this and the in and his of and on between and the that to his in of “the a but of in late early such as that “the and of the in than of the and of that while certainly to a of in that of as a of reason its the one that of as in his of he for that beyond making of In “the of an of into his of the of his those the on the is not to about or to those in power for the might be to as as at as matters in a through or in in real that of rather than is the real basis of to in a that would to the be applied to to this with the as this beyond of being in or to on response to in his and a but of as and of that saw in that . . . could to the and on to power have this in own time with a public who the as the as In on was his of of and with through his and to and Joseph the that in “the of the is to that of of this is his in “the of an who is to that to which those of the public for “to what was into a with for all his how to an more in that of The a in the of to his of as of a to the while is or to the This is an to to to but it is with of of that he views as in an about and of a on the of on the that argued that not but argument with and The in the from the with the with of also not as for which this would have been the with in a more for in than the while more and more was not that about the worth and of for but more instances like the that own or the and of the of a in and Arbuthnot’s after and on writers in the of the to be and of with is with to but not as it should be into of On about and of in that the was as of a the of John but not that to it in the as own on the The of be not of the but perhaps also of and of which from time to time be in the who with to a also to this of this about the from the and to be for that is the probably the a of his a in the a who his in the as was who that the being his from that was a of his in the new and argument that is of a the . . . after the of most on the the between and . . . heaven determined being and to the into that he would not be The is made the the of in to a that not to be . . . was that from which the of the in The and the and its In response to the writers not about the of with but also the of and of this to history of how both and the of the as it to new to the and of the have inherited from this at of the between and In the that the could as a of the of or of financial more a of In the of is more in the of the and of for and views as a of how is an be in would have been a into the of with the of and but there is a of in the few which how the of and have to the and this most in its of the with the is to on and to more of in to the of on and of which an on public was in and in in the of a but was about the of financial and His views the and “a of public and the that the state might not be to its of the also in not what was in but what was or is that the anonymous to the of financial in The was to in to in the from being that the not about own which could be more than to the to the the of in the to a more and and not in the and the to the in the a of the of to up for the that collapse to be of to of the but it provide an interesting on and the of the early financial system in into the this the of of to of in a the of of . . . and of of been to in whose periodical The it in of own which in lifetime, with as one The of a an was not at all at the as a history or it as a in an that as a for such is an an in that in the a about the of of the as that in the of or there of with in the of that the and with the that a of with a but to that such not the but what the of to and the of the that is in such to the of The of the argument to with to a that and even those to of but of the of the argument to be at The is that some of at some and in the of a who is a with in The after the of the it is more than among and writers who saw to in and a of In other through a and the terms of a could perhaps the of this his of the The of was an to and of is more than him as and in with his “the into a in which the and to and the of the Roman up the to the as The it was to the the and to as and The of and the is in the of which with both Roman and and view of the as to the of it also in some than of the of at the of any or even in response to is also for in to (and perhaps it could be and to a on to to the other in which is he and in its of both writers in this could be called to in the at is to or not it is to an of early in the with a of and the of of this is of in the of have a that of the that have him of his former in on and on a to he is as a government he was a to the government of his in the he the in his with who to the perhaps and, in a with the that “to of a is to some of his and the no to the history of the to a on one of its least it is worth even to this is is in a it is and central is that is with the and of a perhaps not the of not to the of the which the with but also to the to a on the and The it least that not but actively to but also and his the of that in the is necessarily In the to for and to between the and the in with also that have no at and that the for or for a of and in support of this to a more general about views on “the between reason and which the on some specific to that in the that “the system of is is also to the in the and a to is not a of with the of the not of those of or in The and of is “a of the of a which not been in who his with and early in the actual name of the he to his own not to not to in his of an in the the of the with from from the of which every is with a in of In this of and ought to him to any His to that to to his with that be and a in a on even as it his that his his beyond as of and in have in perhaps among and the to be to the of in this a argued addresses a in scholarship the between and Sir of in to the (and of the of and to the and of have but the of to been ignored this of about and for a own about his of and his of a for the of the a of shows that more than a to in but in of a the of of is in with and with the for the of power in an the in of almost every of the and own in state and in the of and in the of which with the not is as in a not and as the of is the for but that a to as a of of and to the would with is at on that which would like to which in to for of for to Joseph as a in of the the even in the for a of a what to of the on which from have to as a in the not in early with in of “a of in his of the his a on from the the of the was as a in the eighteenth to it with in to the and and to and the of the with the ability of to and even with and he could for the of his is the with his in this is not one of

Hadar Yoana Jabotinsky, Michal Lavi

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are unique tokens stored on a digital ledger – the blockchain. They are meant to represent unique, non-interchangeable digital assets, as there is only one token with that exact data. Moreover, the information attached to the token cannot be altered as on a regular database. While copies of these digital items are available to all, NFTs are tracked on blockchains to provide the owner with proof of ownership. This possibility of buying and owning digital assets can be attractive to many individuals. NFTs are presently at the stage of early adoption and their uses are expanding. In the future, they could become a fundamental and integral component of tomorrow’s web. NFTs bear the potential to become the engine of speech: as tokenized expressions cannot be altered or deleted, they enable complete freedom of expression, which is not subject to censorship. However, tokenized speech can also bear significant costs and risks, which can threaten individual dignity and the public interest. Anyone can tokenize a defamatory tweet, a shaming tweet, or a tweet that includes personal identifying information and these tokenized expressions can never be deleted or removed from the blockchain, risking permanent damage to the reputations of those involved. Even worse, anyone can tokenize extremist political views, such as alt-right incitement, which could ultimately result in violence against minorities, and infringe on the public interest. To date, literature has focused on harmful speech that appears on dominant digital platforms, but has yet to explore and address the benefits, challenges and risks of tokenized speech. Such speech cannot be deleted from the web in the same way traditional internet intermediaries currently remove content. Thus, the potential influence of NFTs on freedom of expression remains unclear. This Article strives to fill the gap and contribute to literature in several ways. It introduces the idea of owning digital assets by using NFT technology, surveys the main uses of tokenizing digital assets and the benefits of such practices. It aims to raise awareness of the potential of tokenized speech to circumvent censorship and to act as the engine of freedom of expression. Yet it also addresses the challenges and risks posed by tokenized speech. Finally, it proposes various solutions and remedies for the abuse of NFT technology, which may have the potential to perpetuate harmful speech. As we are well aware of the challenges inherent in our proposals for mitigation, this Article also addresses First Amendment objections to the proposed solution.

Angela Walch

Abstract This chapter first describes the current use of the term “decentralized” as applied to permissionless blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Then, it analyzes the complex, contested nature of the term, delving into issues such as the different domains where power is exercised in blockchain systems and the fluid nature of power concentration and diffusion in these systems. Next, it provides examples of events that reveal sites of concentrated power in permissionless blockchain systems, focusing on the activities of software developers and miners. Finally, it explores the significant implications for law of using a fuzzy term like “decentralized” to make legal decisions, as misunderstandings about power hidden in the term can lead to flawed decisions across a wide swath of legal fields.

Marc Jonathan Blitz

Just over twenty years ago, in 1998, science fiction writer and technologist David Brin warned, “One of the scariest predictions now circulating is that we are about to leave the era of photographic proof. . . . We are fast reaching the point where expertly controlled computers can adjust an image, pixel by microscopic pixel, and not leave a clue behind.” (David Brin, The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? 28 (1998)). Now, many articles are reporting that a similar technological transformation is occurring in the realm of audio- and video recording. Legislators and legal scholars have begun asking what laws or technological measures can be used to protect the public from being deceived by “deep fake” videos. This symposium essay considers how First Amendment free speech protection might apply to the creation of such videos – and how such protection might differ from the protection that the Supreme Court found, in 2012, applies to false statements of fact. First, it analyzes how courts have generally adhered to a well-established dichotomy in First Amendment treatment of false claims: In the commercial marketplace, government often stands ready to intervene to protect us against being sold forgeries or other fake goods. The same is true in certain situations where security is at stake, for example, where a fake ID might give a person unwarranted access to an airplane or a building off-limits to the general public. Matters are very different, by contrast in the marketplace of ideas. Here, individuals are largely on their own. Government may not constitutionally exile certain ideas from the free trade in ideas, as it can ban harmful goods or services from the realm of buying and selling. In the realm of free expression, wrote Justice Jackson, “every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945) (Jackson, J concurring). The justices in the 2012 case, United States v. Alvarez, disagreed about how to classify verifiably false autobiographical statement in this dichotomy (and thus disagreed about how to analyze Alvarez’s false claim to have won a Congressional medal of honor). But they largely agreed that false statements on matters of public concern should generally be treated as contributions to the marketplace of ideas, and receive staunch First Amendment protection – unless they constitute defamation, fraud, or some other legally-cognizable harm. Having examined the Alvarez decision and certain difficulties that confront it, the essay then asks whether this First Amendment framework requires modification when the vehicle for deception is not merely a falsity but a forgery – that is, where it is not merely the content of the speech that is intended to deceive, but also its purported source or vehicle. A deep fake video, for example, does not simply present a false description of an event. It clothes such falsity in the authority of video evidence. The essay considers some of the reasons why the First Amendment should perhaps give government greater leeway to regulate fake video- or audio-recording than verbal lies - why, for example, a false statement about war-time actions might be protected speech, whereas a fake video of an event in that war allowing people to see with their own eyes, events which never occurred - might raise more significant concerns. Or why the false content in a fake news article may be protected speech but this may not be true of the false guise it wears as a New York Times, Chicago Tribune, or Washington Post article when neither publication played any role in it. The essay also briefly considers some of the difficulties that courts would face in attempting to differentiate in this way between falsity and forgery, and providing different First Amendment rules to each category of deception.

Carla Reyes

No abstract is available for this record.

Hannibal Travis

In an information society, wealth and power are increasingly linked to access to knowledge and control over telecommunications media. Struggles over access to digital media in particular are presenting uniquely contentious First Amendment problems. The creation of about 200 million blogs worldwide has triggered legal action and legislative reform aimed at alleged trademark infringement by bloggers and cybersquatters. Authors and publishers seek expanded rights to curtail unauthorized digital uses for which they are not being compensated, and have sued Google for digitizing and indexing tens of millions of the world's books and periodicals. Finally, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and other Internet and e-commerce firms are trying to beat back plans by the nation's cable and telephone companies to finance upgrades to their networks by levying discriminatory fees on search engines, as well as on Internet content providers and aggregators. Internet users have often been on the losing side of these controversies, as the economic model increasingly adopted by the Supreme Court is that in order to reward corporations for collecting or disseminating information, its free flow in print and electronic form must often be impeded, and its cost to the user increased. This model threatens to empower broadband companies, copyright holders, and trademark owners to restrict the right of the public to utilize digital media for purposes of free speech. This Article argues that digital media such as the broadband Internet, the World Wide Web, and the blogosphere should be at least as free as the press was at the time that the First Amendment was ratified in 1791. In other words, bloggers could not be enjoined or fined for tarnishing the trademarks or goodwill of their employers or other corporations, for trademark law did not prohibit trademark dilution or other non-competitive uses in 1791. Similarly, Web sites and search engines such as Google could not be restrained from digitizing, indexing, andproviding short previews of books and periodicals, for copyright law in 1791 permitted abridgements, adaptations, reviews, and other value-added uses of copyrighted work. Finally, the cable and telephone companies would not be at liberty to levy discriminatory access fees upondigital media outlets, for their ability to monopolize local telecommunications networks is a legacy of anticompetitive state and federal exclusion of new entrants over the past century in violation of the First Amendment. The framers of the First Amendment would no more have countenanced an attempt by Congress and the federal courts to allow private entities enjoying the fruits of past official monopolies to restrain the freedom of speech over an essential facility such as the Internet than they would have endorsed the creation of a series of local book publishing or newspaper monopolies. The framers presumed that information would flow freely and cheaply to citizens and consumers, enabling them to ascertain their true interests without difficulty, and to make decisions accordingly. As Congress considered ratifying the FirstAmendment, Madison declared that by it the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government. The Supreme Court has construed most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights to provide at least as much protection against infringement asexisted under the common law in 1791. Opponents of net neutrality requirements have opined that the First Amendment rights of corporate owners of telecommunications infrastructure should trump the First Amendment rights of individual speakers and users of telecommunications media. Under this view, the foremost free speech interests on the Internet are those of broadband infrastructure owners, rather than the senders and recipients of Internet speech such as Web content, blogs, eBooks, or online videos. This line of argument misconceives both the distinctive character of the Internet andthe purposes for which the First Amendment was enacted. The Internet and its principal applications such as the World Wide Web grew as rapidly as they did because they were designed to be open, flexible, and uninhibited by gatekeeper control. The high degree of concentration in the broadband market, the inability of many consumers to switch broadband carriers, and plans by broadband providers to discriminate among different sources of Internet content combine to threaten the Internet as an open, decentralized, low-cost communications platform. TheFirst Amendment is not offended by regulations designed to ensure that firms awarded local telecommunications monopolies by the government exercise their power to restrict mass communication in a manner consistent with the public interest. The overriding purpose of the FirstAmendment is to ensure that readers, listeners, and viewers of public debates obtain access to a wide variety of facts and opinions so as to be able to discern the truth as best they can. Even privileging the speaker's perspective, surely the First Amendment interests of the creators, editors, and aggregators of Web sites, blogs, and online videos - rather than the supposed speech interests of the owners of the wires along which content travels - should prevail in the event of a conflict.

B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors

The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a