fix date

lowerdecks260521.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Open Matters
 ---
 <smaller>Kathleen Fitzpatrick // @kfitz@hcommons.social // kfitz@msu.edu<br />
-Lower Decks 2.0 // 21 May 2026</smaller>
+Lower Decks 2.0 // 22 May 2026</smaller>
 
-Note: Thank you so much. I'm sorry that I'm not actually with you there in Dublin, but I'm grateful for the people and the systems that make it possible for me to join you anyhow. Not that many years ago, this kind of connection would have seemed faintly miraculous; these days it's pretty pedestrian, and only calls for our attention when it fails. Zoom has, since the pandemic, become fully infrastructural.
+Note: Thank you so much. I'm sorry that I'm not actually with you there in Dublin, but I'm grateful for the people and the systems that make it possible for me to join you anyhow. Not that many years ago, this kind of remote connection would have seemed faintly miraculous; these days it's pretty pedestrian, and only calls for our attention when it fails. Zoom has in this sense become fully infrastructural.
 
 
 > “Infrastructural systems are famously boring because the best possible outcome is nothing happening, or at least nothing unexpected or untoward.”
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Note:  So infrastructure matters, and the infrastructures on which the scholarly
 
 ## actually equitable
 
-Note: What do I mean when I say "actually equitable"? I want to start by thinking for a second about the open access movement. We've heard a lot over nearly 30 years about the ways that open access can transform scholarly communication, and it's true that a lot has been done to make more research available to be read online. But the movement toward open access began as a means of attempting to break the stranglehold that a few extractive corporate publishers held over the research and publishing process -- and in that, it hasn't succeeded. The last decade in particular has revealed all of the resilience with which capital responds to challenges, as those publishers have in fact become more profitable than ever by figuring out how to exploit APCs, hybrid publishing models, and even whole new business plans like the so-called "read and publish" agreements that keep our institutions tied to them. They've developed new platforms and infrastructures like discovery engines and research information management systems, and all of that serves to increase corporate lock-in over the work produced on campus.
+Note: What do I mean when I say "actually equitable"? I want to start by thinking for a second about the open access movement (with the recognition that in this section of the talk I am really preaching to the choir). We've talked a lot over nearly 30 years about the ways that open access can transform scholarly communication, and a lot has been done to make more research available to be read online. But the movement toward open access began as a means of attempting to break the stranglehold that a few extractive corporate publishers held over the research and publishing process -- and in that, it hasn't succeeded. The last decade in particular has revealed all of the resilience with which capital responds to challenges, as those publishers have in fact become more profitable than ever by figuring out how to exploit APCs, hybrid publishing models, and even whole new business plans like the so-called "read and publish" agreements that keep our institutions tied to them. They've developed new platforms and infrastructures like discovery engines and research information management systems, and all of that serves to increase corporate lock-in over the work produced on campus.
 
 
 > “We became increasingly clear that OA is not an end in itself, but a means to other ends, above all, to the equity, quality, usability, and sustainability of research. We must assess the growth of OA against the gains and losses for these further ends. We must pick strategies to grow OA that are consistent with these further ends and bring us steadily closer to their realization.” <span style="float:right;"><small>—BOAI 20</small></span>