CommentStreams:068419bf9d0b9fafb7614b4610ee6823

It is quite refreshing to read on messengers as a crucial border between the individual and the public. I cannot ignore that encryption has been a weird mix between national security and individual rights (technologies originally developed for secure national communication, but embraced later by tech-savvy individuals, e.g. the Phil Zimmerman PGP controversy in 1993, that I would be happy to talk about more when we meet!).

Like Sami above, I think the text would really benefit from the relation between cryptography (or privacy affordances) and the individual as a democratic subject. This is particularly relevant within the planetary discussion, where "democratic subject" can take different forms according to the territory.

If not entirely sure if there is a critic towards the Planetary as a mode that defines and standardise messaging, or an intention to embrace it in the as a contemporary mode of existence that needs more research on "the geographies" of "owners" of messaging platforms.

(perhaps this is not as relevant, but this definitely reminded me of the 90s internet manifestos -influenced by a strong libertarian and perhaps planetarian ethos, and its counterpart, the creation of internet territories., e.g. Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2008). *Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World*. Again, happy to add some references if you find this useful)