Skip to content

An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three)

July 22, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 17.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Thirteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2018

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2018

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 5,356

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract 

Cory Doctorow is an Activist, Blogger, Journalist, and Science Fiction Writer. He discusses: the importance of intelligent, considerate, and ethical government; American politics; fixing American politics; new media and American political dysfunction; poliics getting potentially less awful or not; technology and politics in the determination of America’s future; changing American politics to facilitate America being a technological innovator; China and India, and the possibility of America becoming a backwater country; Donald Trump and Idiocracy; hope; upcoming collaborative projects for 2016; upcoming solo projects; recommended authors; and final feelings or thoughts.

Keywords: American politics, China, Cory Efram Doctorow, democracy, Donald Trump, India.

Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow: Blogger, Journalist, and Science Fiction Writer (Part Three)[1],[2],[3]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview. *

*This interview was conducted in two parts with the first on April 12, 2016 and the second on July 1, 2016. *

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Following through with the technological changes and shifts that are happening, what remains the increased importance of intelligent, considerate, and ethical government and leadership given the state of accelerating technological change?

Cory Efram Doctorow: The thing that strikes me about all of our technology is that it is most exciting when it is lowering transaction cost. I think that’s the purpose of institutions and governments. It is to create structures that lower transaction costs that allows more people to work on projects and, therefore, to work on things that are more ambitious. The thing about transaction costs going lower and lower in monotonic ways because of technological change. On the one hand, it suggests that we need hierarchies for fewer and fewer things.

So, maybe, we do not need an Encyclopedia Britannica management structure to create an Encyclopedia Britannica. On the other hand, it suggests that our existing bureaucratic institutions can do more than they ever did before, and so, maybe, a boy scout troupe can do more than run a bake sale. They could run the power infrastructure for a whole neighborhood or a maker space that would have previously been industrial and massive like Lockheed Martin.

I think that we’ll see a bifurcation as technology lowers transaction costs. On the one hand, we’ll have fewer bureaucracies doing more and more ambitious things, or lighter-weight bureaucracies doing more and more ambitious things. On the other hand, we’ll have existing bureaucracies massively expanding the scope of their capacity and doing a lot more. If you think about the US surveillance apparatus, that’s a good example of it, getting 1 million people to surveil the whole planet earth is a significant accomplishment.

2. Jacobsen: Is American politics irretrievably broken?

Doctorow: I am reluctant to say anything is irretrievable, not least because it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It may not be retrievable. Now, it is a mess. However, it is not unique for it. There are many political systems around the world in a lot of turmoil: Greece, the UK, and France.

3. Jacobsen: What would it take to fix American politics?

Doctorow: It is clear that there are some structural issues with the two-party system. As all good Hamilton: An American Musical watchers know the party system was back formed on what was meant to be a non-partisan system, it is neither one nor the other thing. The two-party system makes it easier for money to dominate and for influence to dominate, which has been responsible for many of the crises. If we could reduce the influence of money, it might help us reform the two-party system. If we could reform the two-party system, it could reduce the influence of money. That is, on the one hand, it is hopeful. If we could do one, we can do the other. On the other hand, it might mean we cannot do one without the other. We do not seem to be able to do either of them. That is disheartening.

There are some easy wins, which we could have such as campaign finance reform and repealing Citizen’s United would make a big difference. I am excited by what Zach Exley and his colleagues are doing. He was part of the Sanders campaign. They would not agree with this characterization, but I think they are creating a third party and a common platform that is a reformist platform similar to the Sanders platform. They are recruiting 400 or 500 people to run on that platform as Democrats and Republicans in local races, where there are contestable seats. They are using a common fundraising interface for all of those campaigns.

So, you will donate to Brand New Congress. It will go to all 400 or 500 races. The candidates will be freed from having to fundraising and the influence of fundraising. The idea is to have this bipartisan group who all enter congress in a mass and who are in substantial accord on issues that the political consensus has been deadlocked on, which has exacerbated the privilege of a small minority over the vast majority and the lack of evidence-based policy that arose from it. That’s exciting. I do not know if it will work, but it points to a path for something. Exley has pointed to a series of movies since he was the IT, technology, and community person for the Dean campaign. He has gone from strength to strength with each campaign and taken it further. Maybe, he would take it further still this time. That would be cool

4. Jacobsen: How much of a role do relatively new media – the internet, etc. – play in American political dysfunction?

Doctorow: I think a substantial one. The Astroturf has gotten simpler since the internet came along. It is one thing to have false flag operations that we have seen in previous years. You might get fliers stuck through doorways saying, “Whitey does not want you to vote! Make sure you vote on November the 5th” However, the vote was on November the 4th. So, people would stay home from the polls. Now, with Astroturf, there is a lot more of that thing. It can be automated. When H.B. Gary was breached by Anonymous, they were a military contractor and the air force had a bid out to create what they called “Persona Management Software,” which would allow one operative to control up to 20 online personas.

The Russian, so-called Russian, troll factory does this at an industrial scale on behalf of the Kremlin. In China, there is a combination of the Fifty Cent Army, who are people paid half a renminbi (about a 16th of a dollar) for a patriotic post. In addition to that, all government employees were expected to spend a certain minimum number of hours posting pro-government messages that changed the subject when people complained about corruption or derailed the discussion, or called into question the credibility of people who were posting critical material.

It turned out to be an extremely effective strategy, much more so than The Great Firewall. It is the great locus of political control over the discourse itself. The promise of digital media is that it is less, in theory, amenable to being captured by a small number of politically on-the-inside corporations and wealthy people. In practice, there has been an enormous amount of concentration and monopolization, and in the digital world too. There was an Elizabeth Warren speech too, where the extent to which the monopolization of every sector has come into the internet sector.

We have one cable company, Comcast, which serves a crazy percentage, like 80% of American households. We have effectively one search engine. We have approximately one-and-a-half phone systems. This monopolization has created huge loci of control, which has dashed the hopes of people that were hoping the internet would be used to decentralize media ownership and give more control to individual voices.

5. Jacobsen: Will politics get less awful as people become better able to resist being manipulated via new media?

Doctorow: I do not know. I do not think that politics is awful because of manipulation. I think politics is awful because of inequality. I think that when you have people scrambling for not enough, when anything that you gain is something that I lose then you have this awful tenor that plays in politics. Everyone turns on everybody else. I was thinking about it this week. I called it an iterated version of the Ultimatum Game. In the Ultimatum Game, it is this behavioral economics game. The experimenter designates two subjects. One subject is the banker. The other one is the person who takes or leaves the offer.

The banker gets, say, $10 and is asked to split that $10 any way he wants, and then the other person gets to accept the split, where they both get to keep whatever the banker has offered, or reject the split, in which case they both get nothing. The “economically rational” thing in this is to take even a penny if the banker offers it. But in practice, a, widespread finding is that people will reject anything that is materially unfair or anything that is far different from a 50/50 split. And spitefully cost the banker and themselves all of the money rather than accept an unfair bargain, I think that we’ve been in this iterative version of that game, where we have been asked to accept small fractions of the large pie that the top elites have been keeping for themselves and been told that the economically rational this is for us to accept a little and let them have more.

One of the key ways you see this reflected is if you see people discuss poverty as the same problem as it used to be. The measure of poverty is the dollar-a-day measure. The UN version of this. Sometimes, it is an inflation-adjusted dollar-a-day. That dollar-a-day, when it began, gave you a much worse quality of life than now because of technology, the Green Revolution, and cheaper food have changed what a dollar gets you. A dollar-a-day is not a death sentence in the way it was 50/60 years ago. So, we growing inequality, but the inequality does not “matter as much” because the crumbs go a lot further than they did 60 years ago. It does not matter that we’ve become unable. The Ultimatum Game suggests that it does. We are animated by a sense of the unfairness of having so much less than others who have rigged the game so they can keep more than we do, even if the fraction that we keep makes us more comfortable than ever.

I think the ugliness seen in politics today with the racial bias, the xenophobia, are versions or expressions of this conundrum. In particular, the Brexit and Trump vote, or Trump support, is about people who understand that this will be bad for them and their country, but who do not care because it is a way to punish those who got everything when they got nothing. It is not necessarily xenophobia, even though xenophobia is a motif that it returns to and motivates a lot of people. It is a combination and xenophobia and spitefulness. A willingness to do whatever it takes to get revenge on the other guy, even if it hurts you too.

6. Jacobsen: In determining America’s future, how does technology compare to politics? To put it another way, is technology more likely than politics to save America? Does America need saving?

Doctorow: If America is saved, if America has a future, it will be because politics gets better. Right now, the politics is unsustainable. There isn’t a future in which we have less technology. It follows that we are not going to have a better future unless we have a future with better technology in it. It is not the one saves the other. Rather, it is impossible to imagine that a future that the technology is much worse than its opacity, potential for control, and so on. It is like ice.

It is hard to imagine that we will get a future with politics getting better and the technology remains worse. It is probably the case that we need technological reform as a necessary, but insufficient, condition for political reform. There is this interrelation because some of the things that make technology bad are political. We need politics to fix technology and better technology to fix the politics.

7. Jacobsen: How does American politics need to change to facilitate America continuing to be a leading technological innovator?

Doctorow: Right now, American technological implementation obstacles are the regulatory capture and monopolistic practices of technology firms. There are two major exemplars of shitty America policy on technology. One is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is 1980s anti-hacking statute that makes it a felony to do anything that exceeds your authorization on a remote system. That’s been interpreted by prosecutors and law makers to mean that if you violate terms of service you commit a felony. A lot of what has made technology super competitive, and therefore super innovative, is the ability to do adversarial compatibility.

You want to make a service that inter-operates with another one. That other one does not want you to inter-operate. On behalf of the user of that service, you make a tool that connects to the service and odes something. Maybe, you have a printer for a company like DEC that only talks to DEC servers. A company like Sun comes along and says, “Okay, we are going to reverse engineer the protocol that DEC uses to control its printers. We are going to make a compatible stack for Sun workstation. So, you can control your legacy DEC printers with your Sun workstations, meaning that your switching costs for throwing away your DEC work station gets lower because you do not have to throw away your deck printers when you do so.”

Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, if that printer is controlled through the cloud, which means that it is controlled on a server that you do not own or on a leased server, or some other component that requires you to click through some terms and service in order to access that machine and achieve that otherwise extreme commonplace and legitimate technological and commercial activity, then it becomes a felony. The more out software is delivered us services. The more our data is controlled through the cloud. The more this stuff happens on a machine we do not own or have a lesser relationship with, then the harder it is to achieve that compatibility.

Another showpiece of shitty American technology law is the DMCA in section 12.01, which prohibits reverse engineering and removing technological controls to a copyrighted work – even if you’re doing it for a lawful purpose.

It is common to refill an inkjet cartridge and stick it back in a printer or make compatible inkjet cartridges. If you put some software to the inkjet cartridge the interacts with the printer so that when the printer sees it, then it does some basic check so that it is talking to an original cartridge rather than a third party cartridge. Defeating that, it becomes a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $500,000 fine for first offense because that’s an access control that restricts access to a copyrighted work, which is the operating system embedded in the cartridge. You have committed a terrible crime. This allows companies to monopolize the ecosystem around the products and prevent the provision and services that gore their ox. Their business model.

It allows them to fine business models that arrogate to themselves that otherwise in law and practice would be the territory of their customers. The poster child for this is John Deere tractors. They have torque sensors on their leading wheels. They conduct soil-density surveys, which are centimeter accurate on the farmer’s fields that they are driven through. The data about your field, which is useful if you want to broadcast seeds automatically into the field. That data is locked up in the tractor. The tractor has an access control system, which limits the software that contains the data. The data is not copyrightable, but the software that contains the data is copyrightable.

You cannot get access to the data without defeating the access controls, which is a felony. John Deere sells the data back to – you the farmer. You the farmer have to buy your own soil density data that you generate by driving your tractor around your field from John Deere. John Deere does not sell it to you directly. They sell it to you as a bundle with seed from a company like Monsanto. This value that would normally be the province of the owner of the device becomes valued at respite to manufacturer. It is easy to see why manufacturers would want to do this. From an economic perspective, this is pure rent seeking. There is no rational economic story that says this is better of the economy, for innovation, for farmers, for the sector, to allow a firm to use the power of the state to expropriate value from the property of its customers and arrogate it to themselves.

They will never it as efficiently as a market could or their customers. So, this undermines real market driven innovation. It increases monopolism. When you then get into world, where the only way to go to the capital market these days – one of the only ways – is through an IPO, it is mostly driven by acquisition. The way that you become successful, that way that your investors get an exit from your company is positioning your company to be bought by one of the incumbents. So, everything is being constructed to make the incumbents as powerful as possible and the incumbents are sitting on these huge mountains of cash based on, in part, shitty tax policy and the practice of shoring all of their money offshore and then periodically repatriating it during tax holidays.

Paul Ryan and Hilary Clinton have mooted tax holidays for tax cheating companies that have stored billions offshore. They’ve said that they will let them repatriate it at 5% rather than 30%, which they would be normally expected to be pay on those profits. So, these firms are super cash rich. They use that money to snap up other firms that have themselves been constructed solely for the purpose of being acquired by them. It is this ‘lather, rinse, repeat’ of monopolization that reduces consumer choice, reduces competition, and also gives more surplus to these firms to buy policy. So, Google and Apple are both supporting TPP and TTIP, which would, in both cases, help them continue to maintain their dominance by suppressing new entrants and suppressing competition.

8. Jacobsen: With some of those things in mind, will America become a backwater country – trailing countries such as China and India in technology?

Doctorow: Both of those countries have their own problems. Neither America nor China nor India are particular paragons of competition, transparency, or evidence-based policy; although, India did good on the net neutrality front. They aren’t good on censorship. They have one of the recurring problems of an attempting to address deep social problems with quick political fixes is that oftentimes you get these hasty laws that are allegedly suppressing racial bias, but which quickly become an all-purpose tool for suppressing dissent and which are then never effective at undoing the underlying social problems that gave rise to the racial bias. So, India’s caste system is a real terrible travesty and has been used for years to suppress whole populations.

Certain kinds of racialized dialogue are prohibited on the Indian internet, which creates this whole mechanism for widespread trivial censorship with the rule of law and that has become the go-to mechanism for suppressing political dissent. Meanwhile, the problems of the scheduled castes. The people who are supposed to be protected by these hate speech laws go on unabated because the hate speech is not the cause of the problems, but the expression of their problems and suppressing the speech does not change the problem itself.

9. Jacobsen: Let’s move on to Donald Trump, does Donald Trump represent a trend – is he the first of many Idiocracy-style major candidates – or is he an anomaly?

Doctorow: He’s not even the first in international terms. He is of a piece with Marine Le Pen and the Golden Dawn leaders, and Nigel Farage (certainly) and Boris Johnson. Although, in some ways, Johnson is who Trump wants to be; he’s from old money, not new money. He’s classy and witty, not inarticulate and thuggish. There are a lot of things we can say about Boris, but we won’t call him a short-fingered vulgarian. There are a lot of politicians that look a lot like him and appeal to the same instincts. Hungary has had a Trumpian government to its great detriment. I do not know that Trump is the first, but he’s part of a trend.

10. Jacobsen: As a science fiction author, you hesitate to pitch optimistic or pessimistic projections. Rather, you propose hope. Why hope?

Doctorow: Because the alternative is paralysis. I am a great believer in hill climbing. It gets us into a decentralized view of organization and progress. Hill climbing is all about using heuristics. The first casualty of any plan of attack or of any battle always ends up being the plan of attack – spending time figuring out all of the steps that I might take ends up being wasted time because as soon as you start down the path you discover new facts that you weren’t cognitive enough that when you built that expensive exhaustive plan. And so I am a great believer of figuring out what the next step might be and then taking that step and then reassessing and seeing whether you inched your way in the right direction or if you should take a step back and try somewhere else, and though it feels like you’re backtracking. You’re still net ahead of the game as compared to spending all of your time trying to figure out in enormous detail exactly what you plan on doing.

11. Jacobsen: Any upcoming collaborative projects for 2016?

Doctorow: I am working on this giant ten-year project to try and kill all of the DRM in the world. That’s all collaborative. I am trying to build a coalition right now. Security researchers who oppose the world wide web consortia addition of DRM to web standards. As we try to build a similar coalition of technology and civil society groups from the developing world to join the W3C and work on the issue from that direction, these are all intensely collaborative projects.

12. Jacobsen: Any upcoming solo projects?

Doctorow: I have a novel and picture book coming out in 2017. The novel is called Walkaway. I called it a utopian disaster novel. It is a novel in which after disaster strikes people behave themselves well, and get on with the business of rebuilding rather than turning on one another. The conflict in the novel comes from the people who are certain that their fellow humans cannot be trusted pre-emptively. I call it “eating your seat mate before your plane crashes, in case.” The people who believe that people are generally good and will help given the chance, and I think also those worldviews are loosely correlated with at least well and privilege. Anthropologists talk about the idea of elite panic and the conviction on the part of the great and the good. That given the chance, those who have much less than them will come and take away their riches and punish them for having them.

At least some people hypothesize that because that’s what they would do in the situation if it were reversed, I also have this picture book of a kid called Poesy who on her first birthday fights monster using repurposed field expedient weapons built out of girly toys that she has lying around her room called Poesy the Monster Slayer. I am now noodling with ideas about another book for adults called Crypto Wars. It would start a minor character from the other book called Masha.

13. Jacobsen: Any recommended authors?

Doctorow: That book I mentioned called Austerity ecology, and the collapse porn addicts. There is also a debut novel coming out by Ada Palmer called Two Like the Lightning that I rate as a transformative, disruptive new science fiction. She is a historian by trade and brings a good historical perspective to the way that she thinks about the future. It is not like any novel I have ever read. It is remarkable and ambitious. I am great fan a writer named Steven Brust. He’s a fantasy writer who is also a Trotskyist. It is only the Marxist fantasy writers that ever get to write ratios of vassals to lords in their high fantasy. He plays with this idea and attacks it from a lot of different angles. He’s been writing a single series since I was about 13 years old. And he’s closing in on the end of it, and it is a remarkable literal life’s work that he’s put in there. The books keep getting better.

14. Jacobsen: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion?

Doctorow: Hookem Horns! Go, Braves! I do not know. [Laughter] I do not have any sporting affiliation. We did not talk about the US election, but, obviously, there is something going on there. And also the rise of both left- and right-wing populist movements around the world are something I am paying close attention to – from Syriza and Golden Dawn, to Podemos, to neo-fascists, to Trump and Sanders, and Corbin, and even the leadership race with the NDP in Canada where the federal party has adopted Naomi Klein’s Leap Manifesto from scientific leaders like David Suzuki have signed on to and the provincial NDP from Alberta – which is the only one controlling a regional government – is proposing to secede from the federal NDP because they represent energy producing oil territory and the Leap manifesto is down on carbon.

15. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mr. Doctorow.

Bibliography

  1. Doctorow, C. (2016). Crap Hound. Retrieved from craphound.com.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Activist; Blogger; Journalist; Science Fiction Author.

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2018: www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2018: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

[3] Photograph courtesy of Cory Efram Doctorow and Jonathan Worth Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.

[4] About Cory Doctorow (2015) states:

                Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger — the co-editor of Boing Boing (boingboing.net) and the author of many books, most recently IN REAL LIFE, a graphic novel; INFORMATION DOES NOT WANT TO BE FREE, a book about earning a living in the Internet age, and HOMELAND, the award-winning, best-selling sequel to the 2008 YA novel LITTLE BROTHER.

            One paragraph:

                Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger — the co-editor of Boing Boing (boingboing.net) and the author of the YA graphic novel IN REAL LIFE, the nonfiction business book INFORMATION DOES NOT WANT TO BE FREE< and young adult novels like HOMELAND, PIRATE CINEMA and LITTLE BROTHER and novels for adults like RAPTURE OF THE NERDS and MAKERS. He works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. Born in Toronto, Canada, he now lives in Los Angeles.

            Full length:

                Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction novelist, blogger and technology activist. He is the co-editor of the popular weblog Boing Boing (boingboing.net), and a contributor to The Guardian, Publishers Weekly, Wired, and many other newspapers, magazines and websites. He is a special consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a non-profit civil liberties group that defends freedom in technology law, policy, standards and treaties. He holds an honorary doctorate in computer science from the Open University (UK), where he is a Visiting Professor; in 2007, he served as the Fulbright Chair at the Annenberg Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.

                His novels have been translated into dozens of languages and are published by Tor Books, Titan Books (UK) and HarperCollins (UK) and simultaneously released on the Internet under Creative Commons licenses that encourage their re-use and sharing, a move that increases his sales by enlisting his readers to help promote his work. He has won the Locus and Sunburst Awards, and been nominated for the Hugo, Nebula and British Science Fiction Awards.

                His two latest books are IN REAL LIFE, a young adult graphic novel created with Jen Wang (2014); and INFORMATION DOES NOT WANT TO BE FREE, a business book about creativity in the Internet age (2014).

                His latest young adult novel is HOMELAND, the bestselling sequel to 2008’s LITTLE BROTHER. His latest novel for adults is RAPTURE OF THE NERDS, written with Charles Stross and published in 2012. His New York Times Bestseller LITTLE BROTHER was published in 2008. His latest short story collection is WITH A LITTLE HELP, available in paperback, ebook, audiobook and limited edition hardcover. In 2011, Tachyon Books published a collection of his essays, called CONTEXT: FURTHER SELECTED ESSAYS ON PRODUCTIVITY, CREATIVITY, PARENTING, AND POLITICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (with an introduction by Tim O’Reilly) and IDW published a collection of comic books inspired by his short fiction called CORY DOCTOROW’S FUTURISTIC TALES OF THE HERE AND NOW. THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL TOMORROW, a PM Press Outspoken Authors chapbook, was also published in 2011.

                LITTLE BROTHER was nominated for the 2008 Hugo, Nebula, Sunburst and Locus Awards. It won the Ontario Library White Pine Award, the Prometheus Award as well as the Indienet Award for bestselling young adult novel in America’s top 1000 independent bookstores in 2008; it was the San Francisco Public Library’s One City/One Book choice for 2013. It has also been adapted for stage by Josh Costello.

                He co-founded the open source peer-to-peer software company OpenCola, and serves on the boards and advisory boards of the Participatory Culture Foundation, the Clarion Foundation, the Metabrainz Foundation and The Glenn Gould Foundation.

                On February 3, 2008, he became a father. The little girl is called Poesy Emmeline Fibonacci Nautilus Taylor Doctorow, and is a marvel that puts all the works of technology and artifice to shame.

Doctorow, C. (2015, July 30). About Cory Doctorow. Retrieved from http://craphound.com/bio/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three) [Online].July 2018; 17(A). Available from: www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2018, July 22). An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three)Retrieved from www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 17.A, July. 2018. <www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2018. “An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 17.A. www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 17.A (July 2018). www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2018, ‘An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 17.A. Available from: <www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2018, ‘An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 17.A., www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 17.A (2018):July. 2018. Web. <www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Cory Efram Doctorow (Part Three) [Internet]. (2018, July; 17(A). Available from: www.in-sightjournal.com/doctorow-three.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: