Version 2¹

Imagine you are a part of an open podcasting collective, divided into podcasting projects. Each project has its own niche topic (data law, IP-Law, constitutional law etc), but all projects are aligned by the same mission (e.g. enriching the discussion around Law & Political Economy). Main motivations for starting such a science based podcasting network are personalizing your abstract ideas, building a (political) movement, inspiration in times of right-wing backlash, having some fun despite everything. This is not a guide but a thought experiment asking for your feedback. I intend to update it regularly.

Project team members take on different responsibilities like being the co-host, audio editing, outreach, design, or scripting/writing episodes. Each project consists of 2-3 co hosts. However, central decisions are made democratically, and resources are shared among the different projects inside the collective. You could call it “podcasting as a commons” or “open science and scholar-led podcasting.”

Podcasting is a libertarian genre in which each creator is called upon to follow the lonely road to success.² You just need your mic and a computer to grow your podcast and become famous. Right around the corner, a myriad of podcasting platforms offer a helping hand in exchange for a small fee or data harvesting from the podcaster cattle… Growing a podcast requires time. Lots of it. I want to make sure that every hour spent grows in the right place. Buzzsprout seems nice, and Patreon helps fund the basics. But they might get under pressure some day, as they are profit-driven enterprises. Then, their platform power kicks in. Fees might rise, and terms might change. These pressures are deeply at odds with podcasting as a commons. But, what would be an appropriate technology stack & governance mechanism?

Podcasting as a Commons

I see growing (podcasting-)networks in science like gardening. With a certain amount of freedom, solidarity, and trust, creativity grows. But thinking about the much needed scholarly means of production is not a common thing. Infrastructure tends to be invisible as long as it works. Until it doesn’t (see platform power above).

Starting a “collective” implies doing stuff together. Regarding the knowledge commons, Janneke Adema and Samuel Moore have coined the strategy of “scaling small”. Aligned but independent projects lift each other up through cooperation instead of swallowing or destroying competitors. Different new podcasts that start a collective could share many things and create synergies:

• Knowledge (How to Podcast?!)
• Connections (Do you know this person on topic XYZ?)
• Ressources (pooling money and time)
• Publicity (with a common outreach strategy)
• … 🚀

Finding Our Governance

Before I jump at the tools out there, I want to take a little break for democratic self-governance. Governance is the art of making decisions together. It’s hard and, unfortunately, not super common to build governable spaces online. Roles should be clear as well as procedures. Both must be open for change by the people who are ruled by them. It makes sense to write them down, as you can’t avoid governance, and if you never talk about it, there is usually one (admin) guy who decides everything.

🚫🤴🚫 Must-haves regarding collective governance to prevent technofeudalism.
✅ Decisions are being taken by teams and the collective as a whole, striving for consensus.
✅ Rights and procedures are open for change.
✅ Resource flows are transparent by default.
✅ Knowledge is shared by default.

Who is doing what?

A podcasting collective for science could include the following roles and entities.

The collective is a federation of all project teams. It’s a tent to share resources, organize infrastructure, and channel outreach efforts. Its rules and procedures are being set in transparent terms.

A project team consists of 2-3 co-hosts covering a specific topic that fits into the broad topic of the collective. Editorial decisions are being made independently. Infrastructural knowledge regarding podcasting is shared with the collective. Gained resources (donations, grants) are transferred to and shared within the collective.

Independent collective members are not part of a project team, but they provide other contributions (scripting, editing, outreach, design). They receive fair compensation for their work. They also have a say in its governance.

Listeners contribute to the overall direction of the collective. We strive to get the optimal feedback from them.

Backers support the collective with resources. They get decision rights that are not related to the height of their contribution.

Advisory board members provide structured feedback but do not have any governance rights.

How do we decide?

All decisions should strive for consensus. A decision should be “good enough” (without major objections) for all participants.

Knowledge must be shared by default. Ressources are shared on a fair and equal basis. Every resource flow should be transparent.

Building the Technological Stack

There are many tool lists online, but I have found none that strictly adheres to the following criteria:

🚫🔒🚫 Must-haves regarding technology to prevent Lock-In dynamics
✅ Software and data formats must be delivered with an open license (open source / FLOSS).
✅ Decentralized use and/or self-hosting is possible.
✅ The open-source software is well-maintained and has a governance concept.

One important disclaimer: open-source or free software does not mean “free” like without worries or cheap.³ There are always real people building it (usually in their spare time) and they rarely have the resources of big corporations. Therefore, the user experience design is a lower priority (stuff has to work). So to use it yourself, you require some patience and willingness to learn things. Or you pay people to adjust/host the software for you.

Organizing & Planning episodes

A podcasting collective requires continuous deliberation and coordination. Projects need to track their acquired knowledge and communicate plans. Github/GitLab with its issue tracker and discussion forums is a great (although really not perfect) example.

💻 Preferred software could be Nextcloud. In order to …

• use Collectives app as an internal documentation tool,
• use Deck app to plan the production of episodes inside a team,
• use Appointments App and Calendar to schedule interviews,
• use Contacts App to organize possible Podcast guests,
• use Forms App to gather information from guests or get feedback from audience,
• use Files App to share recording data,
• maybe use Nextcloud Talk App to communicate,
  • 🤷‍♂️Notifications can be an issue
  • 🤷‍♂️Requires a dedicated server (costs up)
  • so is it better to use Signal instead?

🔃 Noteworthy alternatives are Loomio for deeper modes of collective decision making. Or Cryptpad for a faster entry with basic organizing tools.

Recording

Many podcasts (especially in sciences spanning the planet) are recorded remotely. So you need to record at least two audio streams to make editing easier (one person uses many “uhm”s). Now things get complicated from a free software perspective. While open source solutions for video conferencing exist like Jitsi, Big Blue Button or Nextcloud Talk and they support recording, usually they do the latter as one audio file. To record separate channels with Jitsi you can use Jibri, but it seems to be rather resource intensive and complicated. So many people might stick with the Zo… monopoly in the video conferencing space.

An alternative seems to be a mixture of Ultraschall.fm and audiorecording through Studio-Link.

So while things are pretty grim on the software side, we haven’t even talked about hardware yet. You need a mic and a computer. If you want to get serious about digital freedom, you need to use open hardware and a free operating system like Linux. Both are combined in the brilliant mnt reform project. Regarding microphones, I have only found DIY-prototypes.

Editing

Luckily, with Audacity an established open source software already exists. You can use Auphonic to smooth your recording.

Hosting

Hosting your podcast with open tools is easy, if you use Podlove, a suite of WordPress plugins.

Pooling Ressources

Organizing a stable cash flow is a tricky business. Many platforms offer “easy” monetization, like Patreon, Ko-FI or BuyMeACoffee. However, this comes with a warning. You are locked in to their walled garden and they will always cut their slice (up to 10%), without any guarantee against rising fees. Network effects hit again and might risk the whole undertaking some day.

An alternative could be a project like OpenCollective. You can either organize your own ressources, if you already have a legal status + bank account. Or, you can find a host on the platform, who will serve as an umbrella to organize your money flows.

1. Thank you to @liska for valuable feedback. ↩︎
2. You could call this another variant of the access doctrine. ↩︎
3. I won’t bring in the beer quote here. ↩︎