some more info on the Ning situation: http://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/ed-mitchell/2010-05/ning-situation#introduction
dave On 5 May 2010 17:57, xDxD.vs.xDxD <[email protected]> wrote: > hello there! > > first of all: sorry for lurking around a bit, lately, we've been so under > pressure for various reasons, but we will be back :) > > bit i wanted to throw pressure aside for a second and say a thing: > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM, marc garrett <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> What I don't want is to build something with others and then finding out >> that they really are not interested, this could be a problem. >> >> There are peers who I originally thought wanted something similar, then >> realised after a while that they were not really that interested in >> being a part of something collaborative or mutual, but more singular - >> based around their own needs alone, rather than building something >> special with others - shared. > > yes, this is indeed very interesting. > > because different ways of being "present" online each have multiple levels > of access, perception, interaction, privacy, publicity... > > even if we take facebook under investigation, you, the user, potentially can > engave a *lot* of different streams of information that are different for > type and intimacy: feeds, info, public chitchat, private messages, > discussion taking place on notes and articles, things being connected to > off-site destinations. the experiences are so varied and disseminated, and > so large in reach and diversity that fb turns into something that very few > people will have trouble in defining as "infrastructure". > > so, on one side, i totally agree with marc and his concerns for private and > personal information/data being managed and handled by commercial entities > that are starting to act like real nations (doesn't anyone of you think that > Google's statements with China closely resembled the diplomatic discourse > that a "classic" nation could have done?). > > and on the other side i am progressively (up to the maniac level) getting > more and more interested in the ethnographic observation of it all, fueled > with the curiosity to understand how things are moving along, how people > bahave, what they desire, what they see interesting, what gets their > emotions running, what turns on connections, interactions and relationships. > > and it turns out that it's proteic: many many different building blocks > which you can't tell apart one from the other, replicated across social > networks, services, portals and platforms, assembling in unique ways around > an infinite variation of concepts and ideas. And each of this agglomerates > (of messaging, realtime info, near-realtime communication, asyncronous > sharing...) has a meaning and that each of them benefits from higher or > lower levels of success (e.g.: number of users) due to a very large number > of factors. > > the least interesting of which are also the most powerful: having loads of > money coming from a commercial or venture capital sponsorship allowing you > to promote the service and activate people around it. > > and the most interesting of them all are also the most ephemeral: the will, > desire and narratives of bunches of people starting up "things" somewhere in > digital time and space. > > i specifically enjoy the performative characterization of this. each of > these action is interstitial and performative in nature: choosing a name > (for domain, website...), a when/where/what/who, buying domains, learning > how to use software packages, setting it up, cursing on unitelligible > configuration syntaxes.. you know... > > and i feel that the "mailing list", especially in its "discussion list" > variation, is very fitting in this scenario. It is truly interstitial (it > doesn't exist, geographically or techno-geographically) and it only and > exclusively lives on exchange: of mail, messages, word-of-mouth, difficult > links to follow to subscribe. > > It is just pure connection to people. > > and, another thing which i find interesting, is that mailing lists are > almost completely out of standard: meaning that fewer and fewer people > choose them as a medium for their exchange, preferring to them all those > managed services such as ning, google groups, facebook and others. > > it is progressively harder to setup a discussion list, if you noticed: > hosting plans loose support for the scripting needed to run mailman, for > example, and public services mostly offer the broadcast quality of > newsletters. and for anyone that is not tech-savy, a managed group of some > sort is practically the only tool left to use. > > i want to be beyond good/bad evaluations on this, for a second, just > noticing a de-facto situation. > > which i find very stimulating to investigate: emails are interferences. Very > powerful, insinuating, captivating, personal, private interferences to all > digital streams of attention. I will give you my facebook profile page url, > but not my email address. i'm worried about spam in my email but not on my > linkedin. i will say some things only in emails, not on social networks. if > new mail arrives, there's practically nothing that will hold me back from > checking it out: no porn, social network profile, stream of micro-messages, > new photo album. First i switch to my email page, then i get back to what i > was doing. I may be exxagerating, but pussibly not a lot. > > all this possibly happens because email comes, in a way, "before" a set of > redefinitions that are taking place, further changing the meanings of > "public space", "privacy", "identity", "relationship", "attention" and a lot > more. So, in a way, it is less about "using an infrastructure" and more > about "communicating". Facebook is a highway, email is an envelope in a tin > mailbox (and we possibly can imagine it this way even if it's a mail to a > million people). > > now, for a small comeback on the good/bad: is there any way to create other > spaces with this level of engagement? of potential intimacy? with this > degree of peer-to-peer-managed relationships? with this level of cognitive > involvement? > > i actually don't know, but i can see myself comfortable with the idea that > it probabily wouldn't be a "platform", a "URL", something that begins with > "http://"; > > i can probabily see it as being something p2p, something that looks like an > instant messaging client, a bit like skype, a bit like emule, a bit like msn > messenger, a bit like something that fits in my pocket, a bit like something > that can get a voice into my head, a bit like something which i can > physically feel if it is close or far. > > it's an interesting thing to think about. > > ciao! > xDxD > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
