On 31.08.2012 12:28, Felix Stalder wrote:
There are some definitely positive potentials to it. For example,
it point towards a cultural economy that does not depend on the
standard copyright model where investments in the first copy are
regained through controlling subsequent copies.
But in
Dear all, Dmytri,
I think that Felix and Dmytri are making the right point here: the absence of a
sharing culture around kickstarter and similar projects.
On 4 sep. 2012, at 13:53, Dmytri Kleiner d...@telekommunisten.net wrote:
On 31.08.2012 12:28, Felix Stalder wrote:
But in practice, as
I haven't fully made up my mind yet when it comes to crowd-funding
(CF).
There are some definitely positive potentials to it. For example, it
point towards a cultural economy that does not depend on the standard
copyright model where investments in the first copy are regained
through
Fully agree with Andreas
nina
I agree.
Sascha
On Mon, August 27, 2012 8:59 am, Keith Sanborn wrote:
I would prefer not to have them on Nettime. I believe they abuse the
function of the list, which has been a reasonably civil exchange of ideas,
insights, intuitions, fads and nonsense.
transactions however,
even when they are mutually beneficial to all, are essentially asymmetrical. It
may not seem to be a big issue right now, but what would happen if over time
the initial crowd funding posts on Nettime achieved a level of success that
they began to outnumber the posts aimed
Posts asking for money always have the same point - money - and this uniformity
does not seem compatible with nettime.
It hurts the entropy.
# distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
# nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text
I think Keith's response is phrased particularly well. A conversation that does
not overtly involve money is still funded in some way … otherwise there would
be no way to use a network to send it and receive it and we would not have the
leisure to participate.
To keep the list supposedly
folks,
first, in my experience, nothing takes 5-10 secs, and even if it does,
there are always at least 24 instances of this which makes it 2-4 mins,
plus x. (i think that proposals like keith's should come with a donation
of personal time to get such simple routines started.)
second, maybe
2-4 minutes times 4,000 is 130-260 brain-hours, at average 10W/brain it comes
to 1.3-2.6 KWh. Human energy source is more expensive than electricity, so this
is likely $15-30 hard cash per moneyspam considering only energy costs. If you
add maintenance, housing and lost brain cycles, it goes
Crowd-sourcing is a form of advertising based on an appeal to social
pseudo-solidarity. Unlike other speech acts on this list, it has carries a
Bingo, Keith! I think this hits on imho the most repugnant disturbing aspect
-- the under-lying intense ego-centricity of social media hyping in
folks,
thanks for raising the question. my two euro-cents worth:
i think that the nettime list should not be used for crowd-funding
requests. this should continue to be a place of debate and
intellectual exchange, not another extension of the market of the
so-called social networks. nettime is
I deeply agree with Andreas,
Even by our hard times.
Anymore, choosing would be arbitrary in every case.
There are other relevant places for crowd-funding
My respect to everybody
L.
On 27 August 2012 13:47, Andreas Broeckmann broeckm...@leuphana.de wrote:
folks,
thanks for raising the
I agree.
Sascha
On Mon, August 27, 2012 8:59 am, Keith Sanborn wrote:
I would prefer not to have them on Nettime. I believe they abuse the
function of the list, which has been a reasonably civil exchange of ideas,
insights, intuitions, fads and nonsense. Solicitations for funding shd go
13 matches
Mail list logo
