*Continuing the New Media Discussion in a new thread with this article, This is another view on the critique of existing condition of web 2.0. and challenges and options on the protocols of communication over the net. I am summarizing the article by Harry Lapin. To read the complete:
http://www.metamute.org/en/Immaterial-Aristocracy-of-the-Internet *1.Is there anything redeeming in the net? It all seemed so revolutionary not so long ago, but today it appears this revolutionary potential is spent. Is this disillusionment symptomatic of the structure of the net itself? 2. Such is the analysis presented in Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker's book, *The Exploit*. However, I think it is problematic at best to forsake the net's revolutionary potential at this point. 3. While Galloway notes correctly that protocols 'are a language that regulates flow, directs netspace, codes relationships, and connects life-forms', he does not seem to understand that without protocols, communication would be impossible. 4. Galloway says due to protocols 'the internet is the most highly controlled mass media hitherto known. 5. Let's think twice about protocol. Both control and communication are expressed through shared convention; when this entails a voluntarily shared convention, as with a technical communications system that can theoretically transmit any message regardless of its content, then is this really control? 6. if the 'common' in communication is necessary for any sort of commons then protocols are necessary and indeed foundational for the emergence of collectivity, including revolutionary kinds. 7. It is far safer to see control as counter-revolution, since this would seem to justify a retreat into critique rather than practice. To his credit, Galloway resists this alternative, and instead posits as revolutionary subject those who seek hypertrophy of the net such as hackers and net artists. 8.After spending most of the first half of the book going through increasingly self-affirming reflections, characterising protocol as the source of individuation both in DNA and man made networks, they come to a great conclusion: 'to be effective, future political movements must discover a new exploit'. Borrowing the hacker term for a piece of software that takes advantage of a bug or glitch, they define the exploit as a resonant flaw designed to resist, threaten, and ultimately desert the dominant political diagram.[4] 9. While we must agree that something is needed, the 'counter-protocol' proposed towards the end of the book comes down to a focus on the 'quality of interactions' and, with the figure of the 'unhuman', a rather predictable fetishisation of viruses and swarms – phenomena that are hardly incompatible with networks, incidentally. 10. The 'Note for a Liberated Computer Language' with which they conclude provides a useless programming language involving constructs like 'envision' and 'obfuscate'; a sort of retreat into neo-surrealism. 11. Galloway is correct to point out that there is control in the internet, but instead of reifying the protocol or even network form itself, an ontological mistake that would be like blaming capitalism on the factory, it would be more suitable to realise that protocols embody social relationships. 12.But studying protocol as if it were first and foremost an abstraction without studying the historic and dialectic movement of the social forms which give rise to the protocols neglects Marx's insight that [Technologies] are organs of the human brain, created bythe human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified.[8] 13. Bearing protocols' human origination in mind, there is no reason why they must be reified into a form of abstract control when they can also be considered the solution to a set of problems faced by individuals within particular historical circumstances. 14. There is no reason why protocols could not also be abstract forms of collectivity. 15. Instead of hoping for an exodus from protocols by virtue of art, perhaps one could inspect the motivations, finances, and structure of the human agents that create them in order to gain a more strategic vantage point. Some of these are hackers, while others are government bureaucrats or representatives of corporations –To the extent that those protocols are accepted, (barring the hackers) this class that I dub the 'immaterial aristocracy' governs the net. 16. The organization of the IETF embodied the anarchic spirit of the hackers. It was an ad hoc and informal body with no board of directors, although it soon began electing the members of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) – a committee of the non-profit Internet Society that oversees and ratifies the standards process of the net. However, the real actor in the creation of protocols was not the IAB or any other bureaucracy, but the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 17. The IETF credo, attributed to the first Chair of the IAB David Clark, is: 'We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.' True to its credo, the IETF operates by a radical democratic process. There are no official or even unofficial membership lists, and individuals are not paid to participate. Even if they belong to an organisation they must participate as an individual, and only participate voluntarily. 18.One IETF participant, Tim Berners-Lee, had the vision of a 'universal information space' which he dubbed the 'World Wide Web'.[11] His original proposal brings his belief in universality to the forefront: We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics extra facilities.[12] 19. The IETF, perhaps due to its own anarchic nature, had produced a multitude of incompatible protocols. While protocols could each enable computers to communicate over the internet, there was no universal format for the various protocols. 20. In what might be seen as another historical irony, years before the idea of a universal political space was analysed by Hardt and Negri as 'Empire', hackers both articulated and created a universal technological space. 21. In the blink of an eye, adoption of the web skyrocketed and the immaterial aristocracy of the IETF lost control of it. Soon all the major corporations had a website. They sent their representatives to the IETF in an attempt to discover who the powerbrokers of the internet were, but instead found themselves immersed in obscure technical conversations and mystified by the lack of any formal body of which to seize control. 22. Instead of taking over the IETF, corporations began ignoring it. They did this by violating standards in order to gain market adoption through 'new' features. The battle for market dominance between the two largest opponents, Microsoft and the upstart Netscape, was based on an arms race of features supposedly created for the benefit of web users. 23. These 'new features' in reality soon led to a 'lock-in' of the web where certain sites could only be viewed by one particular commercial browser. This began to fracture the rapidly growing web into incompatible corporate fiefdoms, building upon the work but destroying the sovereignty of the IETF. 24. This began to fracture the rapidly growing web into incompatible corporate fiefdoms, building upon the work but destroying the sovereignty of the IETF. Furthermore, the entire idea of the web as an open space of communication began to be challenged, albeit unsuccessfully, by Microsoft's concept of 'push content' and channels, which in effect attempted to replicate television's earlier hierarchical and one- way model on the internet. 25.Berners-Lee enjoyed as the 'inventor of the Web'(although he freely and humbly admits that this was a collective endeavor), he decided to reconstitute digital sovereignty in the form of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).This non-profit organisation was dedicated to leading the Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure longterm growth for the Web.[15] 26. Unlike the IETF, which only standardised protocols that were already widely used, the W3C would take a proactive stance to deploy standardised universal formats before various corporations or other forces could deploy them. 27. The W3Cmarks the shift from the radical and open anarchy of the IETF to a more closed and representative system. 28. With Google's rise to its new hegemonic position as the premier search engine, the web is increasingly centred around this highly secretive organisation, reminiscent of Microsoft's monopolisation of the personal computer. Key members of the IAB and other protocol boards like Vint Cerf are also Google employees. 29. The next few years will determine whether the web centralises under either Google or Microsoft, or if the W3C can prevent the next digital civil war. The immaterial aristocracy is definitely changing, and its next form is still unclear. Perhaps, in step with the open and free software movements,as the level of self-organisation of web developers and even users grows and they become increasingly capable of creating and maintaining these standards themselves, the immaterial aristocracy will finally dissolve. 30. This inspection of the social forms, historical organisation, and finances ofthe protocol-building bodies of the net is not a mere historical excursion. It has consequences for the concrete creation of revolutionary collectivity in the here and now. 31. An enquiry into the immaterial aristocracy can help us recognise the social relations that determine the technological infrastructure which enables the multitude's social form, while not disappearing into ahistoricism. 32. Our main thesis is that the creation of these protocols which comprise the internet was not the work of sinister forces of control, but the collective work of committed individuals, the immaterial aristocracy. What is surprising is how little empirical work has been done on this issue by political revolutionaries – with a few notable exceptions such as the anarchist, Ian Heavens. Yet the whole development of the internet could easily have turned out otherwise. We could all be on Microsoft Network, and we are dangerously close to having Google take over the web 33. The problem of the hour is the struggle to keep the non-hierarchical and non-centered structure of the web open, universal, and free so as to further enable the spread of new revolutionary forms of life – although the cost is the continual spread of capital not far behind. The dangers of a digital civil war are all too real, with signs ranging from the great firewall of China, the US military plans revealed in their Information Operation Roadmap to 'fight the net as it would a weapons system', to the development of a multi-tier net that privileges the traffic of certain corporations willing topay more, in effect crippling many independent websites and file-sharing programs. Having radicals participating in open bodies like the W3C and IETF may be necessary for the future survival of the web 34. It would be more productive to acknowledge that political battles around net protocols are increasingly important avenues of struggle, and thebest weapon in this battle is history. A historical understanding of the protocols of the net can indeed lead to better and more efficient strategic interventions. 35. Hackers' and net artists' struggles against protocol are not the only means of liberation. The vast majority of these interventions are unknown to the immaterial aristocracy and those outside the circles of 'radical' digerati. Instead, we should see the creation of new protocols as a terrain of struggle in itself. 36. The best case in point might be the creation of the Extensible Messaging and PresenceProtocol, which took instant messaging out of the hands of private corporations like AOL and allowed instant messaging to be implemented in a decentralised and open manner. This in turn allowed secure technologies like 'Off-the-Record' instant messaging to be developed, a technology that can mean the difference between life and death for those fighting repressive regimes. 37. Protocol is not only how control exists after decentralisation. Protocol is a how the common is created in decentralisation, another expression of humanity's common desire for collectivity. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
