Stimpunks Foundation

Mutual Aid and Human-Centered Learning for Neurodivergent and Disabled People

source code with the string "Sign up today"

Campfire Learn Together: The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia

🗺️

Home » Blog » Events » Campfire Learn Together: The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia

Being boring is camouflage.

— The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia, a film by Campbell Walker

One of the best weapons ever built against corporate feudalism is one of the most boring things imaginable. A license agreement.

— The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia

For our Sunday, September 6, 2026 at 10AM CT, 4PM UK Campfire Learn Together, we are watching and discussing The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia, Campbell Walker’s documentary about the death of ownership — how it happened, who took it, and why nobody shouted.

The film’s thesis is one sentence long and it is about attention rather than technology. Every step that took ownership away from us was boring on purpose. Not hidden. Disclosed, technically, in a sentence the length of a paragraph on page twenty-one of a document nobody finishes. Boring is not a side effect of legal and technical language. It is the delivery mechanism.

This one is personal. I spent my career publishing software under the GPL and defending the GPL and copyleft, which means I spent it inside the argument this film ends on. And a week before this session we published Escaping Rentier Technofeudalism with Deliberately Boring Technology and Generative AI — a page arguing that boring, open, plain-file technology is how a small Disabled-run organization keeps its own archive. So we come to this film holding both halves of the same word. Boring is the camouflage they use on us. Boring is also the best tool we have. That is not a contradiction the film resolves, and it is not one we resolve either. It is the thing worth talking about.

We watch. We reflect. We bring our whole bodyminds. And we go looking for what we were trained not to find interesting.

Videos

We’ll watch this together at the start of the session — subtitles on, sound up, cameras optional. No need to have watched ahead.

The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia – YouTube

The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia, written and directed by Campbell Walker, who publishes as struthless. About fifty minutes. It takes a keynote Cory Doctorow gave ten years ago about a free and open internet, treats it as homework that has come due, and grades it. Along the way: Amazon reaching into people’s Kindles to delete 1984, a coffee machine that refuses unlicensed coffee, a printer that changes its mind overnight, and a license agreement that turns out to be one of the few things that never compromised.

Fair warning, and it is worth discussing rather than skipping: the film carries a VPN sponsorship, in the middle of an argument about escaping rented software. We have thoughts. So will you.

One film, one question: what did you stop noticing because it was boring?

Table of Contents

A Million Tiny Compromises

The fact that good people with the best of intentions can make things worse by just conceding gradually and gradually and gradually until everything sucks.

The film is built around a comment. In 2016, under a recording of Cory Doctorow’s keynote at the Decentralized Web Summit, somebody wrote that they wondered whether in ten years we would look back on this as the start of something important, or whether we would just regret a million tiny compromises.

Ten years later, the film answers. Mostly regret. Some wins.

What makes the frame useful is the mechanism underneath it — the reason a million small concessions beat one large one. The film puts it as clearly as we have seen it put:

And so when you make a little compromise, the next compromise that you make, you don’t compare to where you were when you were fresh and idealistic. You compare it to your current stained state and a little bit more stain hardly makes any difference.

That is a ratchet, and we recognize it. It is exactly how compliance culture works on a person. Nobody asks a child to give up their whole body at once. They ask for quiet hands. Then eye contact. Then a token chart. Then a plan that says the child is non-compliant. Each request is small measured against the last one, and the baseline moves every time, and eventually the thing you are comparing against is not a free person — it is yesterday’s more-compliant version of yourself.

A ratchet does not need force. It needs a baseline that moves. The cult of compliance runs on the same physics as platform decay, and it always has.

Being Boring Is Camouflage

Quick check in. When you heard the term digital rights management, did you get really bored? Like super bored? Did you just tune out? Did your brain just say this is legal and technical jargon and put it in a too hard box? Because mine did. If your brain is getting ready to not listen, that’s probably by design.

This is the thesis, and the film earns it by being honest about where the author is standing. His background is not law. It is media theory, and ten years in advertising — which is to say, ten years inside the industry that engineers what you find interesting.

He describes the tactic with an operational precision that is hard to unhear:

Wrap it up in jargon. Stick it in the middle of a 150 page document in a sentence the length of a paragraph with more brackets than a bookshelf. That way you have disclosed the information technically, but no one cares at all.

And then he produces the receipt. A Disney executive, quoted in the film: if customers know there’s a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we’ve already failed.

Not if customers object. If customers know. The success condition is your inattention.

The film calls the wider version of this mathwashing — the story we get told about how we are not smart enough to understand the systems that govern us, until advocating for yourself requires an expertise you were deliberately denied. As one of its voices puts it: if you’re not aware of how systems affect you, then it’s hard to advocate for yourself.

Hold that next to our Power entry, which is built on Karl Deutsch’s line that power is the ability not to have to learn. Privilege means never having to understand the people you have power over. This film supplies the mirror image, and it is worse: power is also the ability to decide what other people cannot afford to learn. Make the document long enough, dull enough, and jargoned enough, and you have not censored anybody. You have simply made comprehension cost more than most people have.

Boring is not the absence of a weapon. Boring is the weapon.

Own Does Not Mean or Imply Any Transfer of Ownership

These are the terms own, ownership, purchase, sale, sold, sell, rent, or buy in this agreement does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership.

That is real contract language, quoted in the film from page twenty-one of a terms of service. Seven centuries of a word, redefined in a document written to be unread.

The film opens on a run of examples, and the run is the argument: Amazon reaching into Kindles in 2009 to delete 1984 — a book about throwing books down a memory hole; a coffee machine in 2014 that will not brew unlicensed coffee; printers in 2016 whose ink stops working after an update the owner did not ask for; a Spotify device bricked remotely in 2024. Each one is small. Each one is a story about who the machine in your house is actually listening to.

Doctorow’s two principles, as the film lays them out, are the cleanest statement of the stakes we have found:

One, if you own a computer, it must listen to you before it listens to anybody else. That’s what ownership means. And then two, it should never ever be illegal to disclose security flaws in the systems that we use.

And the film adds the gloss that makes them a pair: principle one is how you define ownership, and principle two is how you prove it. A right you are not allowed to audit is a right you cannot demonstrate you still have.

Both were violated. The film’s account of the first is the section that hurts: the W3C — the body that sets the standards for the whole web — voted DRM into the fabric of the web itself through Encrypted Media Extensions, over the objections of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which resigned in protest. Tim Berners-Lee, who gave the web away rather than monetize it, personally overrode the objections. The film does not villainize him and neither will we. It calls it what it is:

Tim’s view was that DRM was inevitable. So if he gets there first, he controls it and he has the say of what it is.

Inevitability is the most persuasive argument a compromise ever makes, and it is almost always made by someone who is about to become part of the thing they said was inevitable.

We have written our own version of the ending this produces. Our boring tech page takes the phrase rentier technofeudal SaaS apart into three plain ideas — a rentier makes money by owning the thing you need; technofeudalism is that arrangement rebuilt out of software; SaaS is the mechanism. And the ending has a name: enshittification. Good to users, then good to business customers, then good to shareholders, then dead. Not a moral failing of particular executives. What the structure rewards.

The Landlord, the Teacher, the Parent of the Queer Kid

Once you create the capacity for remote parties to override the owners of computers, you set the stage for terrible things to come. Anytime there’s a power imbalance, expect the landlord, the teacher, the parent of the queer kid to enforce that power imbalance to allow them to remotely control the device that the person they have power over uses.

This is the most important sentence in the film for us, and it goes by in about twelve seconds.

Everything before it is a property argument — you paid for the thing, the thing is not yours, that is a swindle. This sentence is a different argument. It says the software tether is a power amplifier, and that it will find whatever power imbalance already exists in a room and give it a remote control.

The film gives the mechanism a good image. Your device stays in contact with the servers of the company that made it, which means the company can change the rules, move features behind a paywall, or brick the thing outright. Just as dogs can forget a leash, there’ll be times you forget that this software tether exists. But when you and the dog have different ideas of where you want to go, that is when dogs definitely notice the leash.

Then it lists where the locks already are: We see it in insulin pumps. We see it in thermostats. And it moves on.

We cannot move on, because that list is a list of our people’s bodies.

An insulin pump is not a printer. A communication device is not a coffee maker. When the device under remote policy is the one that speaks for you, regulates your blood sugar, moves you through a building, or holds the only copy of your school work, “you don’t really own it” stops being a consumer-rights complaint and becomes a question about whose hands are on your life. Disabled people have been living under vendor-controlled, remotely-revocable, dealer-only-repairable equipment for years. School-issued laptops with monitoring software. Powered wheelchairs that an authorized technician must travel to. Devices whose features move to a subscription tier while you are still using them.

The film’s list of who will use the leash — the landlord, the teacher, the parent of the queer kid — is a list of the exact relationships in which Disabled, Autistic, and queer people are already surveilled and already overridden. This is not a future risk for us. It is the current arrangement, and technoableism is what it is called when it arrives wearing the language of help.

Right to repair is disability rights. We will say more about that below.

The Most Boring Weapon Ever Built

The GPL is designed to fail well.

Having spent forty minutes on things that compromised, the film asks whether anything held its ground. It finds one thing, and it is a license.

What it is is code that is legally locked free by principle. Free as in for anybody to use, as in open. The way that they put it is free as in free speech, not like free beer. Free speech. It can’t be policed. It can’t be owned by anybody. Nobody can charge rent on it. It just is. If somebody else has it, they can do whatever the hell they want with it, except for one very important thing. They can’t lock it up.

Then the image that makes it land:

The way that I put it is free in the way that language is free. You don’t owe big Spanish royalties if you speak Spanish.

This is the section I have lived in. Copyleft is the same legal machinery as copyright, pointed the other way — and the sharp part is not the freedom, it is the condition on the freedom. You may do anything with this except close it. Which produces the effect the film calls funny and we would call structural: something open to absolutely everybody turns out to lock out the people whose business model depends on enclosure. Out of ethics, something that is so open to everybody suddenly locks out the worst people.

We built on this deliberately. Everything we write is CC BY-SA 4.0 — a free cultural work, not merely something readable at no charge — and the ShareAlike clause is the copyleft. Our broadsides go further and sit in the public domain under CC0, free to print, change, and give away with no permission asked. A license is the most boring page on our website and the one that decides whether any of this survives us.

The film then does something we did not expect and are glad of: it runs the argument back to Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality and forward to Aaron Swartz. Rousseau, on the first person to enclose a piece of land and find people simple enough to believe him. Swartz, on paywalled research: it’s a legacy that should belong to us as a commons, as a people, but instead it’s been locked up and put online by a handful of for-profit corporations. The film notes that he faced up to thirty-five years and died by suicide in 2013, at twenty-six, awaiting trial.

That is the same argument as our library economy entry, which is about usufruct — the freedom to use common resources without destroying them — and the irreducible minimum, the level below which no one should fall. It is the same argument as Free for All, where we sat with what it costs to keep a commons open. And it is the same argument as Code for the People, the Campfire where we watched the open web get built.

Public libraries, public education, and copyleft are three expressions of one commitment: turn knowledge into shared infrastructure instead of private possession.

What Boring Hope Looks Like

This is what boring hope looks like.

The film says this over the right-to-repair movement — a mother with no formal training in electronics who has repaired thousands of iPhones, farmers who could always fix their own tractors until a licensing scheme said they could not, and a run of legislative wins that the film reports as real. It offers a piece of organizing advice inside it that we want to hold onto:

Telling people they’re bad doesn’t work. What actually works is showing them the ways in which they’re being screwed.

Then the film turns inward, and its ending is not about tractors.

So a few years ago, I declared sovereignty over my own head. Censorship and trouble still exist outside my head. And that’s where I would like them to stay, outside my head. I’m not going to assist bad laws and corporations by setting up an outpost for them in my own mind.

And:

And I believe that the feeling of having your head bricked remotely manifests as self-censorship. We just brick our brains for free because it serves power.

We just brick our brains for free. That is the whole DRM argument turned around and pointed at the inside of a skull, and it is the best sentence in the film.

Which brings it to the closing instruction, and to the thing Ryan wanted to sit with when he brought this one to the campfire:

One thing that you can do to help the most is not censor yourself. Say whatever, man. Life’s short and the majority of censorship happens inside your head.

One way to stop censoring yourself is to make the not-censoring structural instead of heroic — to build a practice where the default is out loud. That is what showing your work is, and it is what default to open is. Iterate in the open. Keep the changelog in the open. Publish the half-finished thing with the reasoning attached. A changelog is a commitment device against your own self-censorship — it makes silence visible, including to you.

The film ends where it began, on Simone Weil, quoted for the shape of the argument rather than for comfort: real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring. Real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.

The Stimpunks Synthesis

The following is a Stimpunks synthesis — our own extension and critique, not a claim made by the film.

Boring-as-camouflage is a general-purpose weapon, and it was aimed at Disabled people long before it was aimed at your printer.

This is the extension we most want to bring to the campfire, because the film has the exact right theory and points it almost entirely at technology.

Take the tactic as the film states it — wrap it in jargon, make it long, disclose it technically so that no one can say you hid it, and rely on the fact that nobody will read it — and now stop thinking about a terms of service. Think about a prior authorization. A benefits redetermination packet. An IEP whose goals are written in a language the parent is not fluent in and cannot object to in the meeting. A forty-page appeal with a thirty-day window. A denial letter that cites a code rather than a reason.

None of that is hidden either. All of it is disclosed. And it works for exactly the reason the Disney executive named: the success condition is that you do not know how it works. Administrative burden is DRM for human bodies. It is a lock made of paperwork, it converts a commercial or bureaucratic preference into something with the force of law, and the enforcement is outsourced to your exhaustion.

Our people already know this in their nervous systems. They have just never been handed the media theory for it. Being boring is camouflage explains a whole life of denied claims, and it explains why the fight so often feels unwinnable while remaining, technically, entirely above board.

Now the pushback, in three parts, because a film this good deserves argument rather than applause.

First: the remedies are individual, and the film’s own sponsor segment shows why that isn’t enough. Vote with your data. Switch your VPN. Don’t censor yourself. Every one of those is real, and every one of them is a consumer choice with a price tag and an administrative cost. A documentary about escaping rented software, funded by a monthly subscription to different software, is not hypocrisy — it is evidence of how narrow the exit actually is. And “vote with your data” assumes you have money to spend on privacy and the capacity to migrate everything. When a platform changes, the cost does not land evenly; it lands hardest on whoever has the least slack. The film’s own best section knows this — copyleft, the commons, national repair legislation — and those are structures, not purchases. You cannot boycott your way out of a landlord. You can only change the law, or own the ground.

Second: “say whatever, man” has a risk gradient, and the film prices it at zero. Speaking freely costs different people wildly different amounts. It costs more if your income depends on not being difficult, if your benefits depend on a caseworker’s opinion of you, if your custody or your visa or your housing is contingent, if you are trans in a state currently legislating about you, if you are the only Disabled person on your team. And here is the part we need to say plainly, because the film’s framing invites the wrong conclusion: masking is not self-censorship, and it is not complicity. It is a survival strategy with a documented cost in burnout, and telling Autistic people to simply stop is the same individualizing move the rest of the film so carefully refuses. The structural version of the advice is not braver individuals. It is psychological safety, a community covenant, and people around you who absorb the cost of your candor. Saying whatever is a right. Being able to afford it is infrastructure.

Third: the software tether landed on us first, and the film names us in one clause and moves on. The landlord, the teacher, the parent of the queer kid. We see it in insulin pumps. Those are the two moments the film comes into our territory, and it does not stay. It should have, because the disability case is the strongest case it has. When a locked device is a mobility device, a communication device, or a medical device, the two principles stop being abstract: the machine must listen to its owner first, and it must be legal to check whether it does. A dishwasher you cannot repair is an insult. A wheelchair you cannot repair is a house arrest. Right to repair is disability rights, and independent-living activists have been making that argument for years while it got filed under consumer electronics.

We should also say what we do not have. We publish nearly 450 glossary terms and none of them is right to repair. We have open source, enshittification, privacy, and technoableism, and no entry for the movement that is currently winning. That is a gap in our own garden, this film found it, and we intend to fix it.

None of which makes the film wrong. It makes it an argument in progress, which is the best kind to bring to a campfire. And it leaves us holding the word boring from both ends at once: the camouflage they use on us, and the license, the plain file, the folder, and the changelog that we use right back. They made ownership boring so we would stop watching. We are making our own tools boring so nobody can take them.

Same word. Opposite direction. That is the conversation.

Join Us

Campfire Learn Together happens every Sunday at 10AM Central, online via Discord. This session is on Sunday, September 6, 2026 at 10AM CT, 4PM UK. Open to the whole community — no preparation needed, no expertise required. Come as you are.

We’ll watch together, take a bodymind break, and then open up the reflection questions as a community conversation. You can participate by video, voice, text chat, or just by being in the room. All modes are welcome. Cameras optional. Silence is participation.

There is no designated expert here, including us. I have twenty years of opinions about software licenses and they are worth exactly as much as your story about the app that changed, the device that stopped working, or the form that defeated you. Probably less, honestly. The film’s own advice is that what works is showing people the ways in which they’re being screwed, and the only way to do that is for people to say what happened to them.

Join our community to get access, then find us in our online space. Our Campfire Learn Together page describes some of what to expect. If this is your first Campfire, you’re in good company — many of our regulars showed up for the first time not knowing quite what to expect, and stayed.

Come with something that stopped being yours. A song you bought that vanished. A device you are not allowed to open. An account that holds work you cannot get out. A form that was written so you would give up. And if you have one, bring the opposite too — something you own outright, that no one can reach into and change.

Main Takeaways

  • Being boring is camouflage. Every step that took ownership away was disclosed, technically, in language engineered to be skipped. A Disney executive says the quiet part out loud in the film: if customers know what DRM is and how it works, they have already failed. The success condition is your inattention.
  • A ratchet doesn’t need force — it needs a baseline that moves. You never compare the next compromise to where you started. You compare it to your current stained state. That is how platforms decay and it is how compliance culture works on a person.
  • Power is the ability not to have to learn — and the ability to decide what you can’t afford to learn. Karl Deutsch’s line explains privilege. The film supplies the mirror: make comprehension expensive enough and you have censored nobody, technically.
  • Ownership means the machine listens to you first, and proving it means being allowed to look. Doctorow’s two principles are a pair. A right you may not audit is a right you cannot demonstrate you still have.
  • Inevitability is the most persuasive argument a compromise ever makes. It is also almost always made by someone about to become the thing they said was inevitable.
  • Administrative burden is DRM for human bodies. Prior authorizations, redeterminations, IEP language, forty-page appeals with thirty-day windows. Nothing hidden, everything disclosed, enforcement outsourced to your exhaustion. Same tactic, older target.
  • A wheelchair you cannot repair is a house arrest. When the tethered device speaks for you, regulates you, or moves you, “you don’t really own it” stops being a consumer complaint. Right to repair is disability rights.
  • Masking is not self-censorship, and it is not complicity. Say whatever, man has a risk gradient the film prices at zero. Saying whatever is a right; being able to afford it is infrastructure — safety, covenant, and people who absorb the cost of your candor.
  • The most boring page on our website is the one that decides whether any of this survives us. Copyleft is copyright pointed the other way, and the condition — you may do anything but close it — is what locks out the enclosers.
  • They made ownership boring so we’d stop watching. We make our tools boring so nobody can take them. Same word, opposite direction. Plain files, open formats, a folder you keep, a license you chose.
  • Enshittification — Cory Doctorow’s pattern of platform decay: good to users, then to business customers, then to shareholders, then dead. The ending the film’s million compromises arrive at.
  • Open Source — Collaboration, participation, freedom, and trust as a working model, not just a licensing choice. What the GPL section of the film is actually about.
  • Web — A Domain of One’s Own and the hyperlink as our most potent weapon. What the W3C compromise put at risk.
  • Power — “Power is the ability not to have to learn.” The single entry that most sharpens the film’s argument about engineered ignorance.
  • Privacy — Living privately, and the practical mechanics of not being trivially owned. The film’s second principle, at household scale.
  • Technoableism — What it is called when the leash arrives wearing the language of help. Central to the insulin-pump line the film passes over.
  • Techno-Solutionism — What happens when the tool arrives before the question. The check on any hopeful reading of the ending.
  • Techno-Legal Solutionism — The belief that complex social problems yield to legally mandated technical fixes. DRM is the pattern’s ancestor; “nerd harder” is its slogan.
  • Digital Gardening — The garden versus the stream. Streams are rented; gardens are tended.
  • Library Economy — Usufruct and the irreducible minimum. The economics under Rousseau, Aaron Swartz, and copyleft alike.
  • Hacker Ethos — Flexible improvisation, rapid iteration, plain text, and the digital commons. The culture the license exists to protect.
  • Noncompliance — We do not comply with things that harm us. The ratchet’s counter-move, at the scale of a person.
  • Masking — Why “just don’t censor yourself” is not neutral advice, and who pays for following it.
  • Psychological Safety — The precondition for candor being possible rather than merely permitted.

Reflection Questions

On what you stopped noticing. The film’s claim is that the things that took your ownership were boring on purpose, and it worked. What is the last terms-of-service, policy update, or form letter you clicked past? Not to shame yourself — everyone does it, by design. What would it have taken for you to read it, and who benefits from that number being high?

On the ratchet. Nobody compares the next compromise to where they started. They compare it to their current stained state. Where in your life has a baseline moved so slowly you only noticed later? What was the version of you that would have refused the first ask?

On the leash. The landlord, the teacher, the parent of the queer kid. Whose hand is on a device in your life that isn’t yours? A work laptop, a school-issued tablet, a medical device with a subscription, an account someone else administers. What would change if it stopped listening to them first?

On repair. Somewhere there is a thing you would fix if you were allowed to. What is it, and who decided you weren’t? And what have you fixed anyway — because Disabled people are, as we keep saying, the original life hackers?

On boring as a weapon and boring as a shelter. The same word runs both ways in this film. What in your life is deliberately, gloriously boring in the good way — plain, old, yours, and unlikely to be taken? And what boring thing is currently being used against you?

On self-censorship. We just brick our brains for free because it serves power. Where are you doing that? And the harder half of the question: where is it not free at all — where is the silence protecting your income, your safety, your housing, or your kid? What would have to be true around you for that silence to become optional?

On what you’d want in writing. A license is boring and it holds. What in your life is running on goodwill that ought to be running on something structural instead — a promise from an employer, a norm in a community, a school’s assurance? What would the boring version look like?

—

This page draws on The Subtle Art of Normalising Dystopia, a film written and directed by Campbell Walker (struthless), which itself draws on Cory Doctorow’s 2016 Decentralized Web Summit keynote; and on our own Escaping Rentier Technofeudalism with Deliberately Boring Technology and Generative AI, License: Everything Is a Remix, and Campfire Learn Together: Code for the People. Quotations from the film are transcribed from its captions. The Stimpunks Synthesis section is our own extension and critique, not attributed to the film or its participants.

Resources

Posted

in

by

Ryan Boren

Tags:

,

Discover more from Stimpunks Foundation

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading