Re: nettime Nettime-bold is bleep
As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. First, there was very little interest in it. At its best, nettime-bold had about 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5% the subscribers nettime-l had. I think these figures serve no useful purpose. (you know the rest from the thread...) --snip-- - My response: The key to this dilemma is time. Nettime bold is not successful due to the amount of time it takes to filter all of the submitted material. In an ideal world, all nettimers would have the time to look over every e-mail sent to the bold list, but this is not possible as everyone is attached to some sort of obligation that takes time away from full immersion in possible meaninglessness... I think if the time were available bold would be very successful, but the truth is that most decent publications need editors -- I do not care how decentralized the net may become, this will always be true to some degree. Editors have been around for quite some time in order to subsume noise. Unfortunately, editors (by default) hold a certain priviledged position within the intellectual power structure -- Nettime volunteers are no different. Let us be honest about this and move on. Though I do think the bold list should be made available in some form -- even as messy garbage... who knows, maybe someone could appropriate it as a decadent state of overproductive awareness. Keep on editing, but find some way to leave some (that is where the real challenge is...) Peeezaaccdeee. Eduardo Navas http://navasse.net http://netartreview.net # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nettime Nettime is dead
Dear mod squad, i thought the contrary, that nettime is exactly the only list that failed to remain open in the new media criticismart lists environment, every other list came up with an idea... I am one of those persons whose mails normally don't hit the nettime quality standards or does not fit in the policy, and this also makes me even more than oppose moderation, but besides that, i think nettime failed exactly because of moderation or bad moderation in several respects: - it lost the intimacy of personal communication and personal culture as opposed to commercial and largely spread push content and academic culture - it failed to cover both Western and Eastern underground culture, largely based on the aesthetic of the imperfect *West* or on formal perfection *East* [just think to nettime's resistence to ASCII art and culture, law-fi, or compare this mail of the mod sqaud with a former mod mail http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9802/msg2.html] - the list suppressed or neglected among others criticism concerning female participation, race politics, multiple cultures, information and network culture - together with the increasing number of subsribers the list gave up somewhere to found the Neue Frankfurter Schule, but it also failed to concentrate on research both in the field of art and media. Somehow first it became a dog driven by the tail of media activism, a term originally coined by Toshia Ueno to describe the task of including subcultures and counter cultures in an interface remaking and changing the public sphere - now look, nowadays even online activism is meant for saving curators of the elite. Meanwhile, together with establishing, the list also became one of the many lists... - moderation is a good ground for abuse, it may exclude alternative views, and favour unjustly other ones, ex aequo et bono it does, and so does nettime's moderation model - just to mention the example of nettime's influence on the syndicate list once started to encourage East and West European art and information exchange, where the two West European moderators failed to recognize a subscriber's East European attitude and identity, and kicked it off the the list without the community's approval, without discussion, and even without letting known the unsubscription. Problems with the nettime moderation started with the rejection of posts that could have been relevant for the list content, goal and manifesto, and ends with the complete change of the character of the list. - Pit Schulz was sighing from his boots in 1996 that there is need of a software for a list, I don't know what happened since than, where is that software? Why did the nettime bold include all the spam, why the list was not set to reject non-subscriber's mail? Even a small list like syndicate, that has no instutional support except for hosting the list on a safe server, experiments much more in the field of information exchange, with the KKnut project for example, that allows direct interaction of URL, text, and a mailinglist. Have a look at http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut/. - if once the nettime meeting took place as a 'let's also do something' alibi when I wanted to go to Venice in 1995, and since i did not get the visa for Italy, i got the nettime list instead of Venice, now, together with the dead of nettime bold, i state that I don't need it anymore, this year I'll make it to Venice, and i am one of the five guards who keep alive the fire of openness at the syndicate list. greetings, Anna Balint 2003.05.28. 19:17:40, the nettime mod squad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Nettimers, We are closing nettime-bold. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nettime Fascism in the USA?
What does it mean for the average citizen to be a fascist? I do not have a certain answer to this question. Anyone with a more precise understanding should help here. It seems clear that, at least in the early phases, the average citizen carries out no directly repressive or murderous actions. Rather, it would seem that in a fascist society, s/he watches others do so without protesting, participates in collective national rituals without asking about the repressive and murderous actions being fulfilled by police or soldiers in the nation's name. At what point would one then have to conclude that the United States - and not just its current government - has become effectively fascist? The conditions may be gathering right now for that question to be answered. Three pieces of news have appeared at roughly the same time. They are: a. Rumsfeld's careless admission that Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the war. Meaning that the war was unnecessary. b. Wolfowitz's even more shocking declaration, in a recent Vanity Fair interview (quoted today in Le Monde), that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was chosen for bureaucratic reasons, i.e. as the only issue that could generate sufficient consensus in Washington to go ahead with the attack. c. The revelation, by the BBC's investigative reporters (relayed in The Nation), that the heroic media spectacle provided by US Army reporters of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch was entirely staged, having taken place in reality after the hospital in which she was being held had been abandoned by Iraqi forces. The first and and above all the second items strongly suggest that distorted intelligence was deliberately used to justify the war and thereby make it possible. The third item baldly shows the extent to which the US Army is ready to fabricate propaganda for domestic consumption, and the news networks such as Fox and CNN, to relay that propaganda. In Great Britain, a former member of Blair's cabinet, Robin Cook, who left the government in protest over the war, is now part of a move to demand investigation of similar falsifications, particularly the statement concerning Iraq's capacity to strike at Britain within forty-five minutes, which was attributed to British intelligence services. If in the United States no serious and deep public questioning arises concerning the use of false intelligence and reporting to justify the declaration and pursuit of war, if such questioning is not accompanied by formal political and legal investigation, then I think we would have to face the disastrous reality that significant sectors of the world's wealthiest and most technologically advanced nation are willing to be lied to by their leaders. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case. I'm saying this looks like a real test. If a majority, or even a preponderant minority of American citizens are collectively willing to go through all the rituals of bellicosity and superpatriotism, but unwilling to demand investigation into the facts which are supposed to have made those rituals necessary, then one would have to very seriously ask the question whether a fascist society is not emerging in the USA. And given the interlinked nature of power in the world today, one would have to look around, not only in Britain but everywhere in the developed countries, and assess the level of functional agreement with this American fascism. Not to do so, and not to argue publically against these trends, would be to participate in their development. It would become extremely unwise, for instance, to wait for a more convincing test: Bush's reelection. My opinion is that if Bush is reelected, the US will have become, without any more doubt, a predominantly fascist society. While nervously awaiting that moment of truth, I'd appreciate it if people currently inside the US could give their observations on the way this first test unfolds. Brian Holmes # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
