One reason I wanted to write this series publicly is that I’m not just documenting a tool choice. I’m also sharing my personal perspective on the topic. I’m also sharing my personal perspective on the topic. I’m modeling a way of thinking through complexity that I often ask of educators and students.
This third post is intentionally reflective. It’s me thinking out loud.
After sharing why we chose Jitsi and how we set it up, I found myself returning to a deeper question that sits at the heart of computational thinking:
How do we reason carefully about risk, tradeoffs, and responsibility when there is no perfectly safe option?
That question frequently arises in conversations about AI, data, platforms, and digital literacy. It also showed up in a very concrete way here:
Is it okay to share the link?
This meant that after I had built everything and Jitsi was running, I considered what meeting attendees would think as they joined. I was also concerned about whether this would actually be safer, private, and focus on digital sovereignty.
Put simply, was it “safe” to send them the link and have them join the video conference?
Why This Question Matters
On the surface, this appears to be a technical or security question. But underneath, it’s a thinking question.
Many educators and institutions default to closed systems not because they are inherently safer, but because they feel safer. Centralized platforms promise certainty. Policies, guardrails, terms of service, and someone else to blame when things go wrong.
Open systems feel riskier because they require judgment.
Jitsi forced me to confront that discomfort directly. There was no checkbox that said “make this ethically okay.” I had to reason it through.
That is exactly what I want from folks as they engage in computational thinking.
Computational Thinking Is Not Just Coding
Too often, computational thinking is reduced to algorithms, efficiency, or syntax. But at its core, it involves:
- Defining the problem clearly
- Identifying constraints and affordances
- Anticipating edge cases and failure modes
- Making tradeoffs explicit
- Iterating responsibly
Hosting our own video conferencing space became a live case study in this kind of thinking.
There was no option that was completely risk-free:
- Institutional Zoom reduces some surface risks but externalizes data and governance
- Self-hosting increases responsibility but restores agency and transparency
The work, then, was not choosing “safe” or “unsafe.” It was choosing which risks we are willing to hold ourselves accountable for.
Naming the Concerns Instead of Avoiding Them
Writing publicly about link-sharing mattered to me because it surfaced concerns that are often left implicit:
- What happens if someone joins who shouldn’t?
- What does openness actually mean?
- Where does responsibility live when we host our own infrastructure?
Rather than treating these as reasons to retreat to closed platforms, I view them as opportunities to practice more effective reasoning.
That’s why I laid out:
- What the link does and does not enable
- Where real risks exist versus perceived ones
- How specific mitigations reduce those risks
This wasn’t about claiming perfection. The goal was to make the decision-making process visible.
How I’m Addressing the Concerns (In Practice)
Thinking out loud only matters if it informs action. Here’s how that reflection shows up concretely:
- Authenticated hosting: I log in first, so moderator control is intentional, not accidental
- Contextual sharing: Links are shared where participation makes sense, not broadcast indiscriminately
- Non-guessable rooms: Openness doesn’t mean predictability
- Ephemeral sessions: Meetings end; data does not linger
- Infrastructure transparency: Participants know who runs the space and why
I’m documenting these decisions publicly for a few reasons.
First, I want to make the risks and tradeoffs visible. Too often, infrastructure decisions are obscured by “best practices” or institutional approval. Writing this out creates an audit trail. One that helps others understand not just what I did, but why.
Second, I want this to be useful. If someone else wants to stand up a similar system, I hope this lowers the barrier and surfaces the questions they’ll need to think through along the way.
And finally, this is an invitation. By sharing my thoughts openly, I’m creating space for critique, correction, and conversation. These choices aren’t final. They’re revisable.
None of these steps eliminates risk entirely. They bound it. And I think that distinction matters.
What I Want Educators (and Students) to Take From This
When I ask folks to engage in computational thinking, especially around AI and digital systems, I am not asking them to eliminate uncertainty.
I’m asking them to:
- Slow down
- Name assumptions
- Consider downstream effects
- Accept responsibility for choices
- Revise when conditions change
Choosing Jitsi, hosting it ourselves, and openly wrestling with questions like link-sharing is my way of practicing what I teach.
Digital literacy is not just knowing which buttons to click. It’s about learning how to reason ethically in complex, imperfect, and human systems.
Closing Thought
It would be easier to say, “We use Zoom because it’s approved.”
It is harder, and more honest, to say,“We chose this, here’s why, here’s what could go wrong, and here’s how we’re thinking about it.”
That kind of thinking is not a liability. It’s the skill we most need right now.