I enjoyed the connections in this week’s readings about the nuances of data and digital tools: what they are, what they can show us, what they don’t reveal, how they both reflect and expose power imbalances, and how they can begin to correct some inequalities. Ramsay and Rockwell (2012) argue that digital tools are not simply performative but are themselves built theories, which are by design meant to facilitate further thought. Drucker (2011) discusses the contrasting terms “data”  and “capta,” the difference being that traditional “data” are quantitative, fixed objects, things that are given–like counts, responses, actions–to represent the discrete.  “Capta” on the other hand are described as things that are “taken” from those quantitative points.  Drucker presents a variety of data expressed in bar and line graphs, and then layers “capta” over those graphs using subtleties of the original data, if the right questions are asked of it.  Gallon (2016) writes that while some Black digital scholars are wary about embracing the digital tools that have been used to underrepresent and dehumanize Black people and culture, there is also the understanding how datasets, digital tools and platforms can be used to reveal racializations and inequitable systems of power, as well as recover artifacts and truths hidden or ignored through racism in scholarship. D’Ignazio and Klein (2020) show through Christine Draper’s famous use of what they call “data feminism” at NASA in the 1960s to crack the power hold of white male dominance in space engineering.  And Posner (2014) describes how “sources” are extracted, processed and transformed to create digital presentations that engage viewers and invite further questions about their topics. This group of readings was a great introduction to what is at the deep heart of digital humanities, mutable and powerful as it is by nature.