Just came across this -


On Fri 8 Jul 2022, 03:08 Molly Hankwitz, <mollyhankw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello, Boris, and Brian,
> Thank you for all of your writings and reviews. Boris, those descriptions
> of how corporations will fill the gap of the state by providing travel
> money for women employees seeking abortions...are chillingly correct, and
> scary and partly what I do really like about Safiya Noble's position (her
> name has been misspelled by me, apologies - Noble, not Nobel - forgive me
> for being obsessed, but imho she is moved to write because she is deeply
> concerned with the loss of public assets to the private sector...this all
> seems to be one ball of wax...
> womens' rights being subsumed under employee contracts of individual
> corporations and the rights of corporations to acquire (say in higher ed)
> public assets as their own...this further eroding the public sphere(s)...
> I got around to reading the Morozov not the Strom piece
> There are two conditions of the present which resonate with me in these
> discussions of capital accumulation, yet which aren't about customary
> conditions of factory labor, or other examples of capitalist economies
> because they are unusual circumstances...they are such flagrant examples of
> exploitation that they stand out.
> Situation 1: Bezos making 49 billion dollars of income during the 2 years
> of  massive humanitarian loss and pain due to COVID. Okay, so he happens to
> own a global delivery business, which did well during this time...but can't
> such individual, highly predatory capitalism be regulated, unlawful or
> fined heavily as a blight? Should anyone be able - without some kind of
> payback - to exploit humanity so flagrantly without some kind of fine or
> sanction?
> Example 2. Ukraine war...oil and gas prices sky high at the expense of
> 100s of 1,000s of refugees, loss of life, loss of environment, loss of
> architecture, loss of cultural identity...should oil companies be able to
> reap profit while a war persists? maybe we need a global court to judge
> such huge profits at humanity's expense?
> These profits so frequently allowed to move forward without consequence or
> questioning in the fiction of an objective stance -
> so when Mozorov and Noble both analyze how capable big tech (Google) is of
> amplifying financial gain and the objectification of the vulnerable
> ...maybe these giant shifts in scale can be a start to understanding what
> capital is doing. (Thanks Brian and Boris and Felix for trying). I think
> about screens, screen time, the small screen of our smartphones as pieces
> of peasant turf in the fragmented feudal fiefdom, once part of a pastoral
> commons, more public and less exploitable, and now mined and marred by
> proximity to the minute by minute data-extraction of cyber-markets. I guess
> that might go to digital labor, but much is so unconscious that maybe
> better to stay on the giant global events and who is profiting?
> molly
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:52 PM Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> First, Strom focuses on something that has been central to this list
>> forever, namely tech. He does so in response to some really simplifying and
>> even spurious talk about technofeudalism (by Varoufakis and others), but
>> also, in response to the rather dogmatic and reductive Marxism displayed by
>> Morozov himself, who btw has been the best net critic publishing in the
>> mainstream press. That last detail suggests that Morozov's dogmatism might
>> be a significant symptom of a larger failure to grasp the present, and for
>> that reason the debate in the New Left Review becomes quite revealing (plus
>> I actually recommend the Morozov article on its own merits as well, there's
>> a lot of interesting stuff in there about various strands of Marxism).
>> Problem is, Morozov does not seem able to grasp his main object of
>> interest, which is the internet and networked societies, with the
>> conceptual tools he is trying to use. He returns to the Book I of Capital
>> paradigm, where an industrial firm makes a widget and competes with other
>> industrial firms to sell it on the market. This is the simplified schema of
>> typical dogmatic Marxism, which ought to have disappeared when the
>> Grundrisse and the notes for the unfinished books of Capital were published
>> in the Sixties and Seventies. But it didn't disappear and here's Morozov
>> defaulting to it! Strom, on the contrary, says that under cybernetic
>> capitalism, the firm acts to shape all the factors that constitute the
>> market, namely distribution, sales, financing, government regulation and
>> security, as well as the wage regime that sustains worker/consumers and,
>> even more crucially, the cultural environment that stimulates and channels
>> consumer desire. That kind of shaping was done throughout the twentieth
>> century - just consider the development of credit, social wages, and
>> advertising in the early mass-manufacturing period - but cybernetic
>> machines and cybernetic theory allowed it to be done with incomparable
>> scope and intensity, through the fiber-optic cabling of the world in the
>> 1990s, the consolidation of networked just-in-time production and
>> distribution in the same period, and then the development of social media
>> and platform capitalism in the 2000s. I think all the valuable
>> contributions to the understanding of neoliberalism take this cybernetic
>> aspect on board, although sometimes without naming it as such. If you look
>> at David Harvey, Bob Jessop, Manuel Castells, Hardt & Negri, and dozens of
>> others, they all discuss how capitalism, and therefore, individual
>> capitalist firms and states, act to deliberately shape their operating
>> environment. That's the core cybernetic idea: control is exercised through
>> the design of the overall factors that govern social interaction, which
>> means systemic factors, such as communication, logistics, the monetary
>> system, etc. It's an idea that Hayek understood very well, by the way, and
>> it's worth noting that Hayek became a kind of cybernetics aficionado in the
>> Sixties. Anyway these particular capacities of control gave rise to a
>> recognizably distinct phase of capitalism, usually called neoliberalism but
>> here called cybernetic capitalism in order to insist on the importance of
>> those control functions. So, I may not have been clear enough in my post,
>> but I was trying to say that this cybernetic aspect is real, in fact it is
>> a core component of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. My question is, why
>> is the cybernetic logic of neoliberal capitalism now being forgotten after
>> such important work was done, and after  major struggles were carried on in
>> the 1990s and 2000s in clear cognizance of that cybernetic logic? We talked
>> about it on nettime endlessly for over twenty years, many of us engaged in
>> activism on these issues, and people like Felix Stalder, myself and dozens
>> of others published quite a bit about it, all in the shadow of the major
>> thinkers that I've partially listed (there should be probably fifty more
>> names in that list), and also with a lot of help from science and
>> technology studies. Yet Morozov's text seems like a symptom of a general
>> and ongoing theoretical regression with regard to the analysis of
>> capitalism. I'm mystified by the apparent decline of social theory at this
>> moment in time. Strom is not the be all and end all of social theory,
>> certainly not in one brief article, but at least he clearly names and
>> analyses cybernetic capitalism as it is actually practiced by the big tech
>> firms. And he does so in such a way that you can use his work to fill in
>> all those huge gaps that are inevitable when we're just referring to one
>> short article.
>> The second thing is that many of the components that came together to
>> form the distinctive phase of neoliberalism are now in open crisis, that
>> is, they are breaking down under the weight of their own contradictions.
>> Neoliberalism has been characterized by the free global movement of money
>> capital, factors of production and finished goods, and by the race to the
>> bottom in labor markets that has made labor freely exploitable, through
>> deregulation, outsourcing and a widespread reliance on immigrant labor with
>> reduced rights. But now the international monetary system has become
>> unreliable and is splintering, war and the rivalry between major capitalist
>> blocs is seriously disrupting the ability to produce anywhere capital sees
>> a comparative advantage, and the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of
>> labor is causing social turmoil, on the left in the form of struggles by
>> racialized minorities and precarious workers (often one and the same), and
>> even more on the anti-immigration right where many people have also been
>> seriously affected by capital flight and abandonment (I live in the US
>> Midwest where this condition of abandonment is at its most extreme).
>> Simultaneously to all this, damn, the climate, and more broadly, the
>> biogeochemical cycles that sustain earthly life, are being stressed to the
>> point of collapse, which is causing enormous tension, both on the left
>> where we are aware and very afraid of these impending ecological
>> catastrophes, and on the right where they are terrified of the admittedly
>> major and highly disruptive changes to the industrial system that are being
>> proposed (like, cancel the oil, steel and cement industries, cancel
>> industrial agriculture - this kind of talk makes people very very nervous).
>> All this tension and open conflict suggests that the distinctive phase of
>> neoliberalism will now go through a period of turmoil, comparable at least
>> to the turmoil of the Seventies, and more likely I'm afraid, to that of the
>> late Thirties and early Forties. Neoliberalism is not over and you're
>> right, it is useless to simply proclaim that it's over when nothing
>> recognizable has yet replaced it. However its core axioms are threatened
>> and it appears almost certain that many of these axioms will now evolve,
>> almost surely in a capitalist way I'm sad to say. After all, neoliberalism
>> itself is just a reorganization of two hundred years of capitalism, and
>> every time you check your phone in the taxi when leaving the train station
>> or the airport, you are reiterating major phases of technological and
>> organizational development that still leave their mark on everyday life.
>> Like the train and the automobile, the computational machines of
>> neoliberalism and the cybernetic logic that governs them will continue to
>> be important in whatever new figure of capitalism arises from the present
>> turmoil. But their importance will change, just as the importance of trains
>> has changed, and as the importance of the automobile is about to change
>> through electrification. Can we be aware of these changes as they happen?
>> Can we grasp an overall pattern of change as it emerges? And crucially, can
>> we follow how the big tech firms will evolve, and what kinds of new roles
>> they will take on as the crisis of neoliberalism gets deeper?
>> Finally, I think what Molly Hankwitz is trying to point to is that what
>> we do now, and even, how we interpret the deeds and misdeeds of Silicon
>> Valley, could become crucial to the ways that tech evolves, and capitalism
>> along with it. You know, in the US, neoliberalism largely "solved" its race
>> problems by abandoning Black workers, either through automation, or
>> outsourcing, or by drawing on immigrant labor. The resultant conditions of
>> abandonment plus onslaught from the increasingly nationalist and racist
>> right have provoked a major critique of the whole contemporary capitalist
>> system AND its colonial roots. That critique has spread from Black people,
>> who kicked it off, to Indigenous people, who significantly deepened it on
>> the ecological level, and now to the whole progressive bloc and especially
>> precarious youth, who are directly threatened by the breakdown of
>> neoliberalism and its ecological consequences. How does such a critique
>> affect tech, which is unlikely to just go away (dream on) but which is
>> likely to undergo major changes over the next decade? That's a key
>> question, and when I get some time I'll check out the book that Molly's
>> talking about. I think she's making an important contribution there, but
>> hey, it takes time to read a book so I have not done so yet.
>> Anyway, we might agree more than you initially thought, or if not, maybe
>> we can have a better discussion by making some of the assumptions more
>> explicit.
>> best, Brian
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:58 AM thresholdpeople <
>> thresholdpeo...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> Brian, thank you for sharing these articles, and everyone for the
>>> conversation.  Molly, Nobel's book seems interesting, thanks!  I've got
>>> some issues with Strom's article, and perhaps Nobel offers a clearer
>>> picture.
>>> First though, and respectfully, I think it is dangerous to declaring
>>> neoliberalism dead, or dying.  Or wishful thinking, at best.  How many
>>> catastrophes have we all experienced that resulted in such a
>>> pronouncement?  And now we are seemingly looking at only impending
>>> catastrophes from nearly every direction, as we pass by others that have
>>> already struck, and yet neoliberalism remains.  And is it actually
>>> weakening?  I truly don't think so.  Look at climate change:  as
>>> governments continue to provide "told you so"s to neoliberals as being
>>> completely ineffective at being able to enact any substantive policies, the
>>> market continues to both reinforce the power of the status quo, and provide
>>> a new bubble for capital to flow in to:  for-profit companies developing
>>> products that claim to be the solution we all need.  In the US, now in a
>>> post Roe v Wade world, it's again certain companies stepping in to fill the
>>> void left by government, offering to provide funding for travel for
>>> reproductive care for their employees.  The ascension of seemingly
>>> anti-neoliberal leaders, like Trump and Bolsonaro, continue and bolster
>>> this trend.  Neoliberalism is shockingly, and unfortunately,
>>> hyper-adaptable.
>>> I haven't read Morozov's essay yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit
>>> on judging Strom's.
>>> I found Strom's take interesting for additional points of historical
>>> analysis of our current situation, and I agree with his fundamental points
>>> of needing to understand the levels of abstraction in play to understand
>>> how exploitation occurs, how power operates and normalizes, that we're
>>> not reverting to feudalism, and that capitalism is complicated.  Is what he
>>> describes actually different than neoliberalism though?
>>> Strom writes:
>>> Many aspects of this transformation are discussed under the rubric of
>>> ‘neoliberalism’. No doubt the brutal drive to put profit über alles has had
>>> devastating ramifications for society, subjectivity and the planet’s
>>> ecology; yet the focus on production and exchange should not occlude other
>>> aspects, such as communication, inquiry, organization and technology.
>>> Neoliberal transformations are underpinned by cybernetic changes that laid
>>> the foundations for a global market to operate, via instantaneous
>>> communication and rationalized logistics.
>>> Isn't his just a description of the technical infrastructure that makes
>>> neoliberalism possible and thrive?   What makes lean production, outsource,
>>> subcontracting, causualization, etc possible?  And as such, just capitalism
>>> as we currently know it?
>>> I found the essay pretty scant on what this infrastructure (of
>>> capitalism) means, or why it being like that enables what we have.  There's
>>> a lot of focus on the financialization it enables, but where are the
>>> people?  As an example, there was nothing on the fact that a lot of this
>>> technology, eg AI/machine learning, is made possible and propelled by
>>> ultra-precarious low wage labor, by those who are so far removed from maybe
>>> any company, who can even claim them as employees?  Or even the logic of
>>> using this same technology to source and hire the same laboring people that
>>> continue to do this work.  This work ultimately contributes up toward these
>>> immense valuations and speculations in these companies.  Maybe the
>>> exploitation is taken for granted, and thus left out, but it's almost like
>>> the infrastructure he describes is shown to be self-sustaining, and
>>> self-fulfilling.  This is problematic I think.
>>> I think the closest he gets is that *I* or *you* - this individualized
>>> notion - will be strip-mined of our precious data based on the technology
>>> we have around us.  This is an important consideration, no doubt, but seems
>>> to be missing the point?
>>> I feel like I'm missing something here.
>>> Last year I read Wendy Hui Kyong Chun's book called *Programmed
>>> Visions: Software and Memory*.  It was published over 10 years ago, but
>>> I believe it has a lot in the way of extending and deepening Strom's core
>>> point, but also taking it to task where it's lacking. It focuses on the
>>> parallels and paradigms in both computing technology and neoliberal
>>> governance.  She wrote about how code is an abstraction and metaphor, and
>>> in computing as it stands now, it is a metaphor of a metaphor.  The code
>>> one writes no longer represents what happens when one runs it.  In a sense,
>>> the sheer complexity of the system is beyond one's the capabilities of
>>> being able to grasp it in total.  She traces it back to biology, Eugenics,
>>> chemistry, the military industrial complex, etc.  And offers a very good
>>> history for how the computing industry came to be, going into gender
>>> dynamics.  She saw potentials for intervention within this logic.  Her book
>>> was
>>> And maybe this is tangential, but I would also recommend this talk by
>>> Nancy Fraser - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk2VJAW_jHw.  It's focus
>>> isn't on technological infrastructure, but rather that capitalism requires
>>> non-capitalist spheres to sustain itself.  She discusses how capitalism can
>>> only be fully understood at this intersection point and relation.  She
>>> describes these relations are highly problematic, contradictory, and areas
>>> with crisis tendencies.  Fraser highlights the ecological, social and
>>> political as three such zones and their boundaries: economy and nature,
>>> economy and society, and economy and polity.  Importantly, I think, she
>>> identifies these as points of social struggle, and sees the possibility for
>>> coalition building across these three points as a way to fight capitalism.
>>> Boris
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> On Wednesday, July 6th, 2022 at 1:25 PM, Molly Hankwitz <
>>> mollyhankw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Brian et al,
>>> What a great and hopeful last paragraoh, Brian. Perhais, as you say, now
>>> that neoliberalism is attacking itself, there will be change…can be a more
>>> productive critique if the beast than hipster slants.
>>> I will mention that Nobel’s book, which I’ve read very closely, not only
>>> analyzes the regimes behind search, but provides ideas; is a clarion call
>>> for what is needed to resurrect a 90s era value in public information -
>>> transparency, literacy, and accessibility to a wide range of sources rather
>>> than the singularity of google’s authority - and this from a black
>>> information scholar who is already versed in how information skews history.
>>> Thank you…lots more to read.
>>> Molly
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Jul 6, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> The thing to conclude from this thread is that capitalism is a beast.
>>> You hope it's gonna change, and then it just adds new fangs. We all watched
>>> this happen despite (or even to some extent, because of) Nineties-era hopes
>>> that decentralized networks would translate into a distributed productive
>>> basis for a new society. Dyne.org took this hope on board in the most
>>> pragmatic way possible, and Jaromil, your conclusions after two decades of
>>> sustained effort are definitely heard on this end. It's sad to be the one
>>> who gives them a theoretical framework, but this is where resistance comes
>>> from, right? I don't think there's any way to share struggles, to socialize
>>> resistance, without updating the critical analysis of power. And we're
>>> overdue for a reboot on that account.
>>> Felix, your pamphlet does something fundamental in that regard, which is
>>> basically to ask, is the mining in data-mining the same as the mining in
>>> South America? Or in other words, has the raw expropriation of colonialism
>>> ever been separable from the rule-governed exploitation of factory labor?
>>> The answer that has emerged everywhere, and especially in the Americas, is
>>> no, the beast of capitalism has those two heads. The pamphlet is
>>> particularly interesting because it tries to grasp them together, and to
>>> see how they have together caused the Great Acceleration of climate change,
>>> rather than defaulting back to one or the other as the prime explanation.
>>> To me it is certain that the Great Acceleration of the 1950s would have
>>> never happened without the postwar spread of the cybernetic regime, which
>>> includes not just computers but a vast organizational form, the corporate
>>> state. It takes a willful ignorance not to see that this has always been a
>>> neocolonial, extractive regime (the example of oil extraction, one of the
>>> biggest consumers of CPU cycles, is there for all to see). Okay, that
>>> ignorance was deliberately practiced by many of us for decades, out of
>>> hope, as a kind of constructive wager - no regrets about it. But now is a
>>> time of resistance, and it's really getting urgent to have more precise
>>> observations and stronger theories about where the double-headed and
>>> heavily fanged beast of capitalism is going. That's why I came out against
>>> the idea of techno-feudalism, and all the reductive hipster concepts that
>>> now just limit our understanding, with no political benefit in return.
>>> Since 2008 there has been huge uncertainty about how cybernetic
>>> capitalism would evolve, because of insuperable contradictions within its
>>> financial core. After Trump and Brexit, the just-in-time system of
>>> globalization came equally into question. Now the Ukraine war, including
>>> China's qualified support for Russia, has made it clear that this system of
>>> production-distribution will not stand. We are headed for a major
>>> restructuring, further influenced by the fearsome encroaching reality of
>>> climate change. How is the existing system, the beast, cybernetic
>>> capitalism, going to morph under these new conditions?
>>> For years on nettime we speculated about exactly that question, but each
>>> crisis, from the dot-com bust onwards, was quelled by the injection of
>>> central-bank money into the system. Now it seems that the free-money
>>> strategy has reached its limits. All the world saw that China was able to
>>> use direct state control of the economy to solve a major financial crisis
>>> on a 2008 scale, centered in real estate and particularly around the
>>> Evergreen corporation. Apparently they dealt with it, you don't hear any
>>> more about it. This is definitely a clue. It is apparently possible to
>>> combine cybernetic capitalism with a strong state. Whether or how that
>>> combination might come into being in the so-called West is a real question.
>>> In any event I am certain that the thing we speculated about for so long
>>> is now really happening. The neoliberal paradigm is being hit by all the
>>> monsters that it has created - Russia, precarity, climate change - and at
>>> the same time, AI is coming out of the box. A new production-distribution
>>> system is both technically imaginable and widely desired. The next decade
>>> will see, either generalized war and entropic breakdown, or a reformulation
>>> of the exploitative/extractive combo. I reckon that option 2 is more
>>> likely, although definitely with limited war, of the kind we're seeing now
>>> or maybe worse. If you don't want to leave the right-wing ideologists in
>>> charge of the question of a state-led, protective cybernetics, then now is
>>> the time to give up the hipster concepts and restart the pragmatic analysis
>>> of what is indeed a very ugly beast. How to grasp it as it emerges?
>>> courage to all,
>>> Brian
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:27 AM Jaromil <jaro...@dyne.org> wrote:
>>>> dear Brian, Felix and nettime readers,
>>>> coincidentally, let me share some recent news, small but relevant to
>>>> complete the analysis:
>>>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Lennart-Poettering-Out-Red-Hat
>>>> let me complete with what this magazine (historically pro-systemd and
>>>> aggressively posed against all critics) is perhaps afraid to tell: the
>>>> master of systemd now works for Micro$oft.
>>>> https://twitter.com/jaromil/status/1544618996833583104 I hope you
>>>> don't mind me per-using your quote Brian.
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2022, Brian Holmes wrote:
>>>> > This is totally on point, Jaromil. The tech industry has always been
>>>> able to think cybernetically - it has to, in order to handle interactive
>>>> networks with millions of users - but what you're pointing out, in a very
>>>> specific situation, is how it's now able to carry out integrated strategies
>>>> affecting entire fields or "modes of practice." In your example, it means
>>>> reshaping all the factors that condition the software development process,
>>>> including institutional ones such as the literature on standards and the
>>>> processes for their validation.
>>>> >
>>>> > On the global level both Google and Microsoft are notorious for
>>>> transforming governance through the introduction of particular types of
>>>> software and information-processing services that reshape the activity of
>>>> corporate officials and bureaucrats, and in that way, affect entire
>>>> societies. However I had never considered that Red Hat would be doing the
>>>> same within social-democratic spheres where FOSS development is supported
>>>> by public money. It's somewhat depressing news, because FOSS development
>>>> for public use is really one of the few places where the social-steering
>>>> capacities of Silicon Valley are challenged... I don't have the expertise
>>>> to fully evaluate what you're saying (although I have read about Devuan and
>>>> the systemd controversies!) - but anyway, yes, I think we are talking about
>>>> exactly the same thing here.
>>>> I love how the research and works by Florian Gottke remind us about the
>>>> importance of topping statues, an act operating through the language of
>>>> liturgy, and firmly preluding radical changes in governance.
>>>> And so there is a symbolic event last year worth mentioning: the
>>>> topping of RMS from his role as prophet: we wrote about it here
>>>> https://medium.com/think-do-tank/open-letter-to-the-free-software-movement-7ddc7429b474
>>>> - an open letter written together with Christina Derazenski, a big loss as
>>>> I believe she'd be able to describe much better than me what is happening
>>>> and through the lenses of feminism.
>>>> Today we have the not-so-symbolic event of Linux development being
>>>> steered by Micro$oft, with all implications enounced in this thread.
>>>> So now let me once again use nettime to mark an event in time - this
>>>> list is the best literary blockchain around! :^D
>>>> Today we witness the epilogue of what was the F/OSS movement with all
>>>> its dreams of glory and democracy or do-ocracy or whatever fascinated our
>>>> friend Biella so much when describing Debian. Today we observe what you
>>>> mention as a "classic cybernetic takeover" vastly overlooked by academic
>>>> literature about governance and free software.
>>>> I am fascinated by all this, but somehow relieved there will be no more
>>>> a global F/OSS movement, just pockets of resistance.
>>>> Foucault, Deleuze, Caronia... they have seen all this already.
>>>> And they were right: being and becoming marginal, feels good.
>>>> Also some security experts were right from the beginning, about using
>>>> OpenBSD.
>>>> ciao
>>>> --
>>>>   Denis "Jaromil" Roio      https://Dyne.org think &do tank
>>>>   Ph.D, CTO & co-founder    software to empower communities
>>>>   ✉ Haparandadam 7-A1, 1013AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>>>>   𝄞 crypto κρυπτο крипто क्रिप्टो 加密 التشفير הצפנה
>>>>   ⚷ 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10
>>>> #  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>>>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
>>>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
>>> #  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
>>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
>>> #  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to