Over the past days and weeks, I had the opportunity to talk with several people whose perspectives strongly influenced the direction of my master’s thesis: Anika Kronberger, Martin Kaltenbrunner, Ursula Lagger, and expecially Horst Hörtner.
Although these conversations were very different in tone and focus, one shared insight gradually became clear: my thesis is not primarily about design decisions or visual outcomes. At its core, it is about ethics.
During my talk with Horst Hörtner, one sentence in particular stayed with me:
“Freedom is not the absence of rules, but the absence of oppression.”
This statement fundamentally changed how I think about my project. Until then, I often approached freedom in digital spaces as something that emerges when rules are removed. However, this idea reframes freedom as something more complex. Rules can exist without limiting freedom, as long as they are not oppressive. This immediately raised deeper questions for my thesis: Who defines these rules? Who enforces them? And can systems designed by humans ever truly be neutral?
Through further discussions with Anika Kronberger and Martin Kaltenbrunner, these questions became even more concrete. We talked about interfaces not just as tools, but as systems that structure behavior. Every interface sets boundaries, even when it appears open or playful. This led to an important doubt: Is a website really the right medium for my project?
While a website is accessible and familiar, it might already carry too many expectations and conventions. Other possibilities came up, such as a browser add-on, a plugin for Google Maps or Google Earth, or interventions that sit closer to existing infrastructures. These alternatives could make rules and control more visible, rather than hiding them behind a neutral-looking interface.
My conversation with Ursula Lagger further reinforced this shift in thinking. We discussed the responsibility of designers and how design decisions always reflect certain values, even when they are framed as purely functional or technical. This made me realize that my artefact should not aim to provide answers or solutions, but rather to expose tensions: freedom versus control, participation versus regulation, action versus permission.
At this stage, I am not fully certain what form my final artefact will take, and I am learning to accept this uncertainty as part of the process. What is clear, however, is that I need to engage more deeply with ethical questions. I want to talk to more people, especially from different backgrounds, to better understand how morality, power, and responsibility intersect with design. Broadening this perspective feels necessary before committing to a specific medium or implementation.
Right now, my outlook is open but focused. I know that my thesis will deal with freedom under rules and with the role design plays in shaping what is allowed, visible, or possible. This shift from form to ethics feels challenging, but also motivating. I am excited to see where these conversations will lead next — and I am genuinely stoked to continue this journey.
