Digital spatial technologies and the mode of production
Download PDFMahmoudi, Dillon, Jim Thatcher, Laura Beltz Imaoka, and David O’Sullivan. 2024. “From FOSS to Profit: Digital Spatial Technologies and the Mode of Production.” Digital Geography and Society 7 (December):100101. doi:10.1016/j.diggeo.2024.100101. Digital Geography & Society open access
Abstract
Existing literature has scrutinized the impact of geospatial technologies from various angles. This article adopts a heterodox vantage point—the mode of production—to illuminate the intricate power dynamics woven into the fabric of these technologies. By focusing on the mode of production, we meticulously demonstrate how ostensibly novel digital technologies and geospatial data formats wield power within social relations of production. Responding to calls to scrutinize the political economy of spatial technologies and map-making tools, we aim to unravel the underpinning social relations, software development techniques, and technologies that shape file formats like GeoJSON and Esri Shapefile. By tracing the historical evolution of these formats, the article reveals how digital labor, both voluntary and expropriated, shapes the landscapes of profit-driven technology firms. The rise of open standards is not a departure from for-profit motives but rather a manifestation of the confluence of free, open, and for-profit. Ultimately, we argue that the intricate connections between digital technologies, geography, and capitalist structures enroll seemingly independent FOSS products into broader systems of capital accumulation. These findings highlight the far-reaching impact of geospatial technologies and their role in perpetuating and reshaping capitalist dynamics.
Summary
Another excuse to work with Jim Thatcher, Laura Beltz Imaoka, and David O’Sullivan. And to be clear this isn’t an attack on open source software or contributors, but an analysis on how they are captured for for-profit motives. We note that current discussions around geospatial technologies often explore their transformative potential, emphasizing how open-source software and open standards could decentralize control and democratize access.
There is no intrinsically and inevitably free aspect to FOSS, rather its developments, much like the history of computing itself, reflect particular times and spaces—particular relations—within larger circuits of capitalism. … By framing FOSS within these systems of production and their social relations, we are able to call attention to how dead labor—even labor ostensibly given for free—flows through circuits of capital, through networks of computation and exploitation.”
This article examines the historical development and ideological roots of free and open-source software (FOSS), emphasizing its emergence in contexts shielded from direct market forces. Much of FOSS development occurs within infrastructural code, away from user-facing applications, making its labor and contributions often invisible to end users. This “invisible” nature is reinforced by the layered structure of computing technologies, where older, often open-source components persist beneath newer proprietary platforms. However, these dynamics are far from altruistic; instead, they are deeply intertwined with capitalist systems, where FOSS provides free “dead labor” to technology firms, reducing costs and driving profit-seeking behavior.
Our focus on geospatial technologies here is not to suggest that these dynamics are unique to the spatial industry but rather to emphasize their ubiquity across sectors and the critical need for geographers and geospatial scientists to scrutinize these processes. This manipulation of technological standards has profound implications for spatial understanding.
Using geospatial technologies as a case study, the article illustrates how the boundaries between open and proprietary code are manipulated for market dominance. For example, Mapbox leveraged open standards like GeoJSON but later closed its software to maintain market control, especially in response to Microsoft’s integration of Mapbox’s FOSS components into Azure Maps. Similarly, Esri’s dominance with the proprietary Shapefile format entrenched the “spaghetti data model,” standardizing poorly defined spatial relationships while maintaining interoperability to absorb alternative formats into its ecosystem. These practices underscore the critical need for geographers and GIS professionals to interrogate how these standards shape spatial understanding and governance.
Finally, the article situates FOSS within the broader systems of capitalist production, highlighting its role in the commodification of labor and accumulation by dispossession. While FOSS appears to challenge corporate dominance, it serves as a tool for profit maximization, enabling firms to exploit unpaid labor and maintain power within the tech industry. This labor is not only expropriated but also encourages self-exploitation among developers seeking career opportunities. The framing of FOSS as inherently “free” or “open” is a myth, as it operates within specific historical and social relations of capitalism. The authors call on digital geographers and technology scholars to critically analyze how FOSS technologies and their associated firms navigate these systems, with particular attention to their temporal and spatial dimensions.