Zittrain's Framework
In his 2008 book The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It, Jonathan Zittrain identified two competing models for digital technology:
Generative Systems
Platforms that are open, modifiable, and allow users to build new things on top of them without asking permission. Key characteristics:
- Leverage: A wide range of tasks can be accomplished
- Adaptability: The system can be modified to suit new purposes
- Ease of Mastery: Users can learn to use and modify it
- Accessibility: It's widely available and adopted
- Transferability: Changes can be shared and built upon by others
Examples: The PC (personal computer), the World Wide Web, email, UNIX, Arduino
Tethered Systems
Platforms that are closed, controlled by a vendor, and require constant connection to that vendor's servers to function. Characteristics:
- Vendor Control: The creator retains authority over how it's used
- Remote Updates: The system can be modified or disabled remotely
- Locked Down: Users cannot modify core functionality
- Dependency: Requires ongoing relationship with vendor to operate
- Single Point of Failure: If the vendor goes away, so does functionality
Examples: TiVo, Kindle (early versions), iPhone (initially), cloud-based software (SaaS), smart home devices
Archaeological Implications
The generative/tethered distinction directly predicts which artifacts will become Vivibytes and which will become Petribytes:
Generative → Vivibyte Path
Generative systems create artifacts that can outlive their creators:
- An .html file (generative: open standard, runs locally) remains a Vivibyte decades later
- A .txt file (generative: simple format, no vendor lock-in) is immortal
- An .mp3 file (generative: open codec, device-independent) survives platform changes
Tethered → Petribyte Path
Tethered systems create artifacts that die when the tether is cut:
- A Google Docs file (tethered: requires Google's servers) becomes inaccessible if account is closed
- A Spotify playlist (tethered: streaming license, not file ownership) disappears if service ends
- An Instagram photo (tethered: platform-hosted, API-dependent) becomes a Petribyte if the platform shuts down
The Shift: Web 1.0 → Web 2.0 → Web 3.0?
Web 1.0 (1990s-early 2000s): Generative Era
The early web was radically generative:
- Anyone could create a website with basic HTML
- Files lived on your server (or GeoCities' free hosting)
- View Source let you learn by examining other people's code
- Webrings, guestbooks, and blogrolls were user-built, not platform-provided
Web 2.0 (mid-2000s-present): Tethered Revolution
The rise of platforms introduced convenience at the cost of generativity:
- Facebook replaced personal websites (your profile lives on their servers)
- Twitter replaced RSS feeds (your posts are controlled by their algorithm)
- Spotify replaced .mp3 collections (you don't own the music, you rent access)
- Google Docs replaced Word files (your document exists only in the cloud)
Web 3.0 (speculative): Return to Generativity?
Some argue blockchain and decentralized technologies could restore generativity, but this remains contested:
- Pro: Ownership via NFTs, decentralized storage (IPFS), permissionless innovation
- Con: Most "Web3" platforms are tethered to specific blockchains, wallets, and marketplaces
The Archaeologist's Test
When evaluating a digital artifact, ask these questions to determine its generative/tethered status:
- Can it run offline? (Generative: yes, Tethered: no)
- Can you modify it? (Generative: yes, Tethered: vendor controls it)
- Can you export it? (Generative: standard format, Tethered: proprietary or locked)
- Will it work if the company goes bankrupt? (Generative: yes, Tethered: no)
- Can you study how it works? (Generative: view source, Tethered: black box)
The Resilience Equation
Generativity correlates directly with archaeological resilience:
- High Generativity = High Resilience: Files can be preserved, studied, and revived by third parties
- Low Generativity (Tethered) = Low Resilience: Files depend on vendor cooperation; when the vendor dies, so does the file
Field Notes
The iPhone Paradox: Apple's iPhone was initially tethered—no third-party apps allowed. But in 2008, they opened the App Store, making it more generative. However, apps themselves are tethered: they require Apple's approval, can be removed remotely, and often depend on cloud services. The iPhone is a hybrid: generative enough to spawn innovation, tethered enough to maintain control.
The Kindle Warning: Amazon's 2009 remote deletion of George Orwell's 1984 from customers' Kindles (due to a licensing dispute) is the canonical example of tethered danger. Users "owned" the book, but Amazon retained the power to delete it remotely. Generative alternative: a .epub file on your hard drive can't be remotely erased.
Why Modding Communities Matter: Video games with active modding communities (Minecraft, Skyrim) are more generative than locked-down games. Even if the original developer stops supporting the game, the community can keep it alive. Tethered games (always-online, server-dependent) die when the servers shut down.
Case Study: The MP3 as Generative Rebellion
The .mp3 format represents generative technology triumphing over tethered alternatives:
- Tethered Alternative: Music industry wanted DRM-locked formats (iTunes FairPlay, Windows Media DRM)
- Generative Winner: .mp3 (no DRM, device-independent, user-owned files)
- Result: .mp3 became a Vivibyte; DRM-locked files became Petribytes when license servers shut down
The Builder's Choice
When creating new digital systems, the generative/tethered choice is ethical as much as technical:
- Choose Generative: Empower users, enable longevity, sacrifice some control
- Choose Tethered: Retain control, ensure revenue, risk obsolescence
Archaeobytology advocates for generative design. Tethered systems create landfills of future Petribytes. Generative systems create Seed Banks of future Vivibytes.