Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes. This article situates itself well in the focus of JoPP, and, more specifically, in the Alternative Internets issue. It addresses relevant questions for the Internet of today and for those that may be. Still, the article is in need of some further work to be fully publishable: in particular, a) it is in need of making its research question stand out more in the beginning b) it needs to “admit”/address analytically, a little bit more than it currently does, the ‘fine line’ between academic article and manifesto it now travels. I further elaborate on it below.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
The treatment of the subject matter is interesting and I am very much sympathetic with the angle adopted by the author — that the potential for actors to act with full control over the technologies they use is shaped by the tensions between different components of a networked system, including its lower layers. I think however, that for a paper which puts the notions of networked control and networked power at the forefront to this extent, the literature review is missing a discussion of these complex notions – the author needs to acknowledge the interdisciplinary work that is being done in this regard to mitigate the impression of ‘manifesto’ that these notions risk to give if a-problematized (see my point b above).

Incidentally, the title “In Defense of the Digital Craftsman” does nothing good in this regard. Perhaps it may be nuanced somewhat, to make it sound a little less ‘political’ and more in tune with the subtitle. Same goes for the conclusions-like section, which mixes conclusions about the framework’s usefulness with very ‘activist’ statements (the last sentence, “…with the outcome determining whether we have the ability to innovate and tinker, or whether we become digital serfs facing an ever-more-oppressive panoptic and extractive networked world.”, being a very eloquent example. In a journal like JoPP, both things can co-exist, but need to be better ‘qualified’ for what they are, to maintain a critical perspective on the subjects the journal addresses.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
Going back to my (a) point above, while the abstract outlines the RQs (“how centralization of control is increasingly hindering innovation, and how open digital platforms offer a far more liberatory alternative that supports future Digital Craftsmanship”), and the methodological/theoretical contribution (the “five-layer framework”), I find the introduction quite confusing, and these important pieces of information somewhat drowned in what is already, partly, a literature review. Perhaps it is because the first section is meant to ‘Introduce the Digital Craftsman’, not the article itself (which is in sore need of an intro and clear outline of the plan, especially due to its length).

The framework is very interesting and the examples of the ‘revealing tensions’ at the different layers are well provided. However, taking into account the considerable amount of space dedicated to these illustrative examples, it would be good to say something more about the methodology through which this information was obtained (just secondary sources? Are there any interviews/observations? How/why were these cases selected?) Right now, the methods are only represented by the framework itself, but nothing is said about the process of its ‘making and feeding’, so to speak.

4. Is the article well written?
Generally, the article is well written. Be mindful of typos (e.g. Long-tail, not long-tale).

Attention to the weird formatting of the first paragraph in the section ‘Constraining…’

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
Re: point (a): I would suggest to make a proper introduction to the article, which briefly introduces the concept of DC, before exposing its core structuring elements. The RQ, albeit “buried” at the end of the second page, is actually clear in the body of the article, and more precise vis-à-vis its proposed methods: “how the locus of control supports and/or undermines craftsmanship across five dimensions of networked information and communications technology (ICT)”. Once RQ and methods are clear, the literature and context can be introduced in more detail.

A discussion of the “control” and “power” notions as they relate to networked systems should be added.

Possibly a visual rendering of the framework would be useful.

The more ‘political/activist’ statements need to be put in perspective with the scientific contribution made, and, at times, nuanced.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Revise the introduction and make core elements clearer (as detailed above)
• Better problematize some core notions -Add a visual rendering of the five layered framework
• Be more careful of openly political statements
• Be more precise about how the framework came about, and the choice of content to illustrate it

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
This paper covers a very interesting topic that overall fits the scope of this issue. However, while it provides a very good overview of various ways in which the Internet and technology are becoming increasingly centralized and enclosed, it unfortunately has little to say about how to resist this development and how to create alternatives and support digital craftsmanship.

I think the argument of the paper could be substantially strengthened by discussing not just how networks, devices, applications, content and data become increasingly centralised, but also how resistance and alternatives could be encouraged on these five different levels.

In order to be able to identify resistance strategies and possible alternatives, it is however necessary to identify the causes and drivers of this centralisation in a more consistent manner. While the author at various times mentions corporate interests as key drivers, these could be named more explicitly and discussed in a more consistent manner.

At times the author argues that the shift toward centralised control undermines not only digital craftsmanship and innovation but also “meaningfully competitive markets”. I am not at all convinced by this argument. Isn’t the illusion of market competition one of the drivers of the centralisation, commercialisation and commodification of ICTs? Isn’t the goal of competition exactly to win by outmanoeuvring (ie eliminating, acquiring etc) competitors to maximise market power and control? The author seems to acknowledge that the main driver of the centralisation of ICTs are corporate profit interest – I think these need to be analysed in much more depth in order to develop a convincing narrative regarding not just what is happening with the Internet at the moment but why it Is happening and what needs to be done to confront it.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
The paper provides an excellent overview of the “ever-increasing shift toward command-and-control networking”. The author correctly argues that much of the critique of the commodification of the Internet and related enclosure of the commons has not sufficiently focused on how these processes  become enacted on a technological level. However, I think rather than focusing on the technological aspect only, the response needs to be to bring both together. I get the feeling that this is exactly the author’s intention – but I feel the political-economic analysis is a bit underdeveloped. I think the literature on the political-economy of commodification and corporatisation of the Internet could be explored in more depth in order to develop a more consistent and convincing analysis of its drivers. The author mentions the work of McChesney and Fuchs. Other relevant authors for example include Vincent Mosco (I am particularly thinking of his recent book on cloud computing), Nick Dyer-Witheford, Jodi Dean and many others.

There is also literature that discusses the contradiction between the corporate desire for openness on the one hand and the need to control and enclose the commons on the other hand  (which the author briefly mentions in the section on devices). In fact, the contradiction between promoting the commons and enclosing them has by now been quite well theorised in the literature on the commons. This paper by Jakobbson and Stiernstedt could be particularly helpful: http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/314/331

The concept of digital craftsmanship is very interesting – I was immediately thinking of the writings of William Morris and the 19th century arts and craft movement. Looking at these to these 19th century ideas could perhaps interesting insights on the concept of craftsmanship. The idea of digital craftsmanship as opposed to  corporate enclosure is extremely interesting  – however, I think the author could focus a bit  more on how the former can be strengthened.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
Generally the paper is very well argued. It offers a clear outline of the various ways in which ICTs become more centralized and why this is problematic. The discussed examples are well chosen and very much to the point.  However, I think the analytic dimension of the paper needs to be foregrounded more for example by identifying and analysing causes and drivers of this centralization.

Perhaps the author could clarify the argument re data caps: I am not a tech expert but it seems to me that internet access has always been organised via data caps. At least in Europe consumers always need to choose data packages for their internet connection. Indeed, isn’t the fact hat we need to buy Internet access, as opposed to it being provided for everyone as a public infrastructure, always necessarily a data cap? If you don’t pay, your data is capped to 0. Perhaps you can clarify the argument here.

I am also not sure I understood the author’s position re regulation and scarcity – historically it is certainly the case that regulation was designed to create artificial scarcity, but wasn’t that done to protect the public interest from corporate control? Regulation through creating scarcity might no longer appropriate at the moment, but could there be other ways regulations could operate in the public interest and perhaps help to confront the corporate drive to control and enclose technology?

4. Is the article well written?
Yes

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
About starting points for resistance strategies and alternatives – this could be done in a separate section at the end, as part of the conclusion or – perhaps best – as part of the five sections that analyse centralisation in the realms of networks, devices, applications, content and data.

Suggestions for improvement:
Deepening the analysis of the causes/drivers of the increasing centralized control over ICTs – eg by adding a section that draws together common patterns in the described centralization of networks, devices, applications, content and data.
Identifying starting points for resistance and alternatives: could change come through regulation? What are other resistance strategies? Do you see a movement of ‘digital craftsmen” emerging that could demand change? Why, why not? Could such a movement be a way forward? Or
I also recommend shortening the description of examples in order to free up space for a more in depth discussion  of the two above points

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes, indeed. The author provides an analytical framework of 5 layers to analyse Internet-of-Things era technological systems. It is a relevant topic nowadays, and the authors are up to date in the literature.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
I think the treatment is intellectually interesting, and well conveyed. There are no essential references that I am aware that are lacking.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
No major problems. The conclusions include some categorical/exaggerated statements but nothing important.

4. Is the article well written?
Yes, except for very minor mistakes, indicated in the text.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
Yes, I would encourage the authors to expand the paper (either within the last section, or in a new section before the last) with a discussion on the framework as a whole. I miss that, after describing the 5 layers, the authors do not provide: examples of analysis including the 5 layers; the limitations of the framework, e.g. is it recommended just for IoT-related technology? Or in which cases should it be applied?; how open digital platforms are analysed within this framework? i.e. in the abstract they are mentioned as an alternative that supports Digital Craftmanship… but the focus of the paper is in problematics and negative examples.

Suggestions for improvement:
I’d like to congratulate the authors for their work, which I enjoyed reading, and their review of existing literature and interesting examples. There are though several minor changes I’d suggest.

The “Digital Craftsman” is an unfortunate term choice. In recent years there have been a tremendous effort to use inclusive language (e.g. gender neutral), and it is strongly recommended that especially new concepts abscribe to this. Thus, I’d suggest the term change to “Digital Craftsperson”, already accepted in major dictionaries.

I’d advise the authors to review the references, as very frequently they refer to works that do not appeat in the list of References, e.g. Zittrain 2008, Meinrath et al 2011, Schneier 2015, McGinn2013, Castells 2010.  The are several minor glitches all over the text, specially repetition of words (e.g. “for for”, “with with”) but also other typos (e.g. “ways. which”, “FaceBook”) or grammar mistakes (e.g. “an range”, “by email Fitbit”).

A minor comment: there are a diversity of examples of bogus takedown notices, so I honestly do not understand why the authors choose one where a man is ridiculized because of being “channeling an alien”. I’d encourage the replacement of the example with another example (e.g. bogus takedowns include those against not copyrightable content, or not owned by the claim proponent).

I’d add a discussion section, as explained above: I would encourage the authors to expand the paper (either within the last section, or in a new section before the last) with a discussion on the framework as a whole. I miss that, after describing the 5 layers, the authors do not provide: examples of analysis including the 5 layers; the limitations of the framework, e.g. is it recommended just for IoT-related technology? Or in which cases should it be applied?; how open digital platforms are analysed within this framework? i.e. in the abstract they are mentioned as an alternative that supports Digital Craftmanship… but the focus of the paper is in problematics and negative examples.