Hello friends. We assume that because we have a common goal that we are bound together, but a line groups often turn against each other, horizontal hostility is a term coined by feminists but used across marginalized groups. It describes infighting or factions within a minority movement. Researcher Judith White gives us some examples. When a deaf woman was crowned Miss America, people said she wasn't deaf enough because she spoke instead of signing her name or acceptance speech. The Northwestern Black Student Association opposed a lighter skinned black professor for not being black enough. And we have all heard, or maybe perhaps some of us said, that some things are not open enough. The message of horizontal hostility is if you are not all in, then you don't belong here. I want to talk to you about the damage that horizontal hostility due to the women's suffrage movement. In July of 1848, the first US conference for women's rights was held in New York. Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone were both leaders in the suffrage movement for the fight for women's right to vote. In 1869, the 15th Amendment was proposed. If passed, it meant that black men would have the right to vote. Susan B. Anthony opposed the 15th Amendment on the principle that it excluded women. Stone supported ratifying it because it advanced the broader cause of equal treatment for all. And even if it meant that white women would have to wait. Anthony couldn't see how advancing the vote for blacks would advance her cause. She and Stone divided and she launched an association that was all female and all white. In fact, Anthony courted the support of racists saying, I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not for the woman. Lucy Stone, on the other hand, sought out allies and established her own association with membership that included black men and women. Stone built community forged alliances, shared tactics with other movements. And eventually, those alliances, black and white, women and men helped the suffragists and their allies per se per suede, several states, to allow women the right to vote. While Susan B. Anthony gets a lot of the attention today, it was Lucy Stone who reached across the movement and saw how each step for some would help advance us all. Activist and author, Audrey Lorde, eloquently gave voice to the idea of bridging divides. I say, it is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. But the master's tool will never dismantle the master's house. It may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never bring about genuine change. Now let's take that and talk about the foundations of our community, of our open community. Our community is built on the principles of free and open source software. Our roots are attached to technical openness and open code. Richard Stallman founded the free software foundation where we see the idea of viral code and viral share like appear. Linus Torvold released the Linux kernel and the famous kernel mailing lists. These are our masters of open source. But Foskery, to be more than just software, the Fosk ideals expanded and their values spread across communities. To see Fosk principles embedded in Wikipedia, in open education, and in the open access community. The authors of the Budapest Open Access Initiative go so far as to say that the Fosk philosophy is so similar that when we saw the success that open source was having, it served as a guiding light to us. And so we are bound to those who came before us to their tools. But these masters tools have come at a cost. A toxic culture that has harassed, rejected, excluded, and assaulted those who disagreed or were different. Come for the open source, be rewarded with hateful culture. A culture based on Linus who was feared by as many as those who celebrated him. Python used the terms master and slave. Wikipedia, notorious for its toxic editors and the damage to the community that happens when they are tolerated. This is the culture that the masters have built for us. And just last month, as Dr. Katie Bauman celebrated her part in astronomy history, men were counting her lines of code and comparing them to others on her team desperate to diminish her achievement. Christine Peterson is the futurist who coined the term open source in 1998, with the goal to create an easily understood term that didn't require a beer analogy. Like a lot of women in our history, Christine remains largely unknown because her story can't be quantified. The culture of openness is also one of horizontal hostility, erasure of contribution and the value of many individuals, especially women, especially people of color. In 2016, I tried IRC that internet relayed chat. I found it confusing and clunky and so I gave up. And later that year, CC decided to open its lack to the global community. I was an early and strong advocate. It won me over on its open accessibility and the community was there. Then the tweets began questioning my values. The DM and email attacks were constant, relentless and hateful. It was repeatedly made clear to me that there was a right way to be open and there was a wrong way and I was not open enough. I said not just to be wrong, but quote a traitor to the true values of open. Some of those men who sent those messages sit with us in this room today. And all of this was because I used and celebrated a new tool, one that was more accessible to me. This is our foundation. Like Anthony to Stone, like Foss, there are those who value technical openness above human centered progress. For the rest of us, we are told we don't belong here. And while our roots do sit in technical openness, our community has moved on. There are no code counts in artwork in the Glyam community or mentoring in No We Are or in the advocacy work of copyright reform. So how do we stop the horizontal hostility in the open movement and choose to reimagine ourselves through the work of Lucy Stone? We all have this common goal to support access to knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we have to work in the same way or that we won't benefit from those in aligned movements. Maybe it is because, as Lord says, we are lacking in our ability to take our differences and make them our strengths. We are still using our master's tool. And this is going to matter. It already matters because our master's new tool is AI. Because AI implicitly only knows how to use the master's tool to teach itself how to be a better master or one that is inherently biased built on exclusionary practices. We see this feature now with Wikipedia and its ever widening gaps in the sum of all human knowledge. It is also the world's richest data set for AI. This is why now is the time that we, the privilege, must choose to put down our hostility. Now is the time that we must seek strength in our differences. Now is the time that we must put down the master's tool. Now is the time for genuine change. Thank you. Thank you.