From skimming the TOC and first chapter this seems more about dynamics and fluidity than structure. It's a frustrated lament of all -archies and the idea that m

From skimming the TOC and first chapter this seems more about dynamics and fluidity than structure. It's a frustrated lament of all -archies and the idea that meaning in software comes out of the structure of its form or production. I guess that's why we call it *soft"-ware in the first place. Malleable, reconfigurable, flexible, easily re-writable. extensible... If software has a problem today it's that it's ceased to be soft. Big Tech would rather we had appliances than general purpose computers, and that we "deploy apps", controlled from the mother-ship, than "run programs". As social infrastructure rather than personal utility, software becomes about fixing and preserving power relations, rather than enabling new ones. It becomes ossified into structures - and the anarchic ones may be as dogmatic as the hierarchic ones.