Finally, for a geopolitical parallel to your framework, I recommend @andreacalderaro.bsky.social's paper on how the EU pursues regulation as a means to achieve digital sovereignty where it can't in other ways -- another example of existing political doctrine informing governance.

Four, meaningful civil society presence in the political sphere is essential in many GM countries to petition repressive legislation and hold platforms accountable. But between haphazard consultation, lack of technical expertise, and little control over funding, their efficacy can be often limited.

Three, sound policy vs. sound politics; the former is usually the focus, which encourages static, short-term perspectives on the movement of government. The latter shows us the fragility of the process, how policymakers think and operate, and how we can leverage that.

Two, the politics *informs* the regulation, especially in Global Majority countries. I agree that your framework can apply to countries like India, but I would emphasize how pivotal political themes like techno-nationalism, identity-based disenfranchisement, and executive overreach factor in.

Examining the political logic of how regulation is crafted is crucial! Because one, as you point out in the interview, it requires us to see technology not in a vacuum but as an extension of existing institutions. This is often glossed over in governance frameworks and policy considerations.

A great example of how something like this can go right is with iNethi in South Africa (www.inethi.org.za). They work *with* communities to co-design wireless networks, encourage human-based structures around the tech, and never perceive the tech in a vacuum.

Excellent read. LinkNYC seems to be a prime example of technological determinism clashing with social determinism: technologies incorporated without consideration of existing institutional capacity and an honest effort to build community-oriented support.