Re: morlock elloi

[lizvlx]

Your talking about Soros is quite antisemitic.
(And your whole theory therefore false and unfounded)
I am not gonna cite the infected paragraphs here.
They are quite easy to spot.

Ok…one..

“Money dealing capitalist"
> He is a money dealing capitalist, ...
> investor clients with closer ties to the industry, putting his money
> both in giant industrial investments etc. …. contact
> with the OBOR and Industrial Internet consortium, Cisco and IBM, Intel
> etc. vs. Googles, Facebooks, and others. Yet he still has the ability
> to play like the letter fraction, which is the owners of Wall Street
> giants like Morgan, Sachs, part of Rockefeller and Rothschild etc. So,
> I bet if one go through Soros’ largest investors, one would find those
> corporations that have closer ties to the industry, while their money
> is also invested whatever brings more and easier money including wars
> and military industrial complex, or Google.

Bye/lizvlx

> On 9. Apr 2018, at 23:56, Örsan Şenalp  wrote:
> 
> Jaromil, Soros is in us, he is everywhere don't you see that :)
> 
> Suicide bunny..  funny.. though I don't really get in what sense what
> I do here would bring my end himm may be you're right..
> 
> I wish, instead, you would think of me being spastic or autistic, or
> too naive in insisting on authenticity of radical politics. Then I
> wouldn’t mind.
> 
> Well.. even in case of extremely well planned and organized
> revolutionary counter-conspiracy, which I don't think neither possible
> or desirable, it would be almost impossible to be so close to Soros as
> Evgeny is, (which he is not hiding) and be able to seriously pursue
> any radical politics. Which is claimed or attributed to him here, and
> other places, mainly mainstream and liberal media.
> 
> The booklet you refer, I shared on the other thread, by Evgeny and
> Bria shows that Evgeny and Bria are collaborating, in and on
> Barcelona, and other cities. where there are lots of stuff happening
> about cities (movements), digit rights (movements), independence
> movements etc. So it should not come as a surprise that Soros pops up
> from somewhere.
> 
> This is what Evgeny says in his wiki-page: he is involved in Online
> Transitions (of Eastern Europe and beyond), he is a fellow at the New
> America Foundation (chaired by Eric Schmidt and Ann Marry Slaughter),
> he sits in a OSF fellowship chair, he is blogging for the 'Foreign
> Policy', he is a Yahoo fellow at 'Walsh School of Foreign Service'..
> you name it.
> 
> Moreover Morozov's role in all these places, as in Barcelona, and in
> broader Europe makes him one of the most influential persons of 2018
> right, according to some Italian magazine (bet it is not an ordinary
> one)? Do you really think he is such influential? Does anyone else?
> Anyone without Soros funding-income relation ties him to do so? Can
> you see or feel such influence when he is around you? in his link to
> Francesca for instance, or may be Ada Colau or in Catalan Movement of
> independence? or the rising cities movement?
> 
> If one would say Morozov’s is a genuinely radical internet critic, and
> he has an amazingly bright brain and the creativity in his critics is
> like Picasso painting.. and that is what brought him to where he is
> now, others would probably lough at it and claim the opposite. One can
> easily claim that those who are crediting him are doing that because
> they have feel obliged, by consent and for self-interest, to be able
> to get access to the next round of funding etc. And they can only be
> radical as a liberal can, not further than that. A person from outside
> would either see Morozov as part of Soros' inner circle, or would
> think that Soros is really a radical-critical even a leftist one. Or
> if Evgeny is a really radical left critic, then Soros is a suicide
> bunny J
> 
> Seriously, I do think that these guys are playing a suicidal game, but
> I don’t think in bunny's  way.
> 
> There is a clear connection, a good hacker cannot miss here.
> 
> Probably an individual, and his individual political vision could be
> able to keep sort of autonomy or independence while working in Soros
> circle. Yet it can only be a modest one, a liberal kind. What we read
> from Calin Dan's 97 email to net-time list, even that was quite not
> possible. Morally, in my opinion it is not even an issue, being part
> of conspiracies of Soros (not the Soros conspiracy) is not a simple
> thing, or joke.
> 
> He does not rely only on soft-velvet glows to fist countries down; or
> only deploys tech tools for online transitions. The guy has involved
> and does involve in dirty stuff too; in his tool kit there are
> assassinations, spying, military coups, civil wars, or financing
> armament and war parties, you name it.
> 
> Worse of all about not having a proper theory of class fractions and
> Soros place in fractured class struggle is deadly. Soros’ operations,
> as a class actor, have contributed massively in 

Re: morlock elloi

[Örsan Şenalp]

Jaromil, Soros is in us, he is everywhere don't you see that :)

Suicide bunny..  funny.. though I don't really get in what sense what
I do here would bring my end himm may be you're right..

I wish, instead, you would think of me being spastic or autistic, or
too naive in insisting on authenticity of radical politics. Then I
wouldn’t mind.

Well.. even in case of extremely well planned and organized
revolutionary counter-conspiracy, which I don't think neither possible
or desirable, it would be almost impossible to be so close to Soros as
Evgeny is, (which he is not hiding) and be able to seriously pursue
any radical politics. Which is claimed or attributed to him here, and
other places, mainly mainstream and liberal media.

The booklet you refer, I shared on the other thread, by Evgeny and
Bria shows that Evgeny and Bria are collaborating, in and on
Barcelona, and other cities. where there are lots of stuff happening
about cities (movements), digit rights (movements), independence
movements etc. So it should not come as a surprise that Soros pops up
from somewhere.

This is what Evgeny says in his wiki-page: he is involved in Online
Transitions (of Eastern Europe and beyond), he is a fellow at the New
America Foundation (chaired by Eric Schmidt and Ann Marry Slaughter),
he sits in a OSF fellowship chair, he is blogging for the 'Foreign
Policy', he is a Yahoo fellow at 'Walsh School of Foreign Service'..
you name it.

Moreover Morozov's role in all these places, as in Barcelona, and in
broader Europe makes him one of the most influential persons of 2018
right, according to some Italian magazine (bet it is not an ordinary
one)? Do you really think he is such influential? Does anyone else?
Anyone without Soros funding-income relation ties him to do so? Can
you see or feel such influence when he is around you? in his link to
Francesca for instance, or may be Ada Colau or in Catalan Movement of
independence? or the rising cities movement?

If one would say Morozov’s is a genuinely radical internet critic, and
he has an amazingly bright brain and the creativity in his critics is
like Picasso painting.. and that is what brought him to where he is
now, others would probably lough at it and claim the opposite. One can
easily claim that those who are crediting him are doing that because
they have feel obliged, by consent and for self-interest, to be able
to get access to the next round of funding etc. And they can only be
radical as a liberal can, not further than that. A person from outside
would either see Morozov as part of Soros' inner circle, or would
think that Soros is really a radical-critical even a leftist one. Or
if Evgeny is a really radical left critic, then Soros is a suicide
bunny J

Seriously, I do think that these guys are playing a suicidal game, but
I don’t think in bunny's  way.

There is a clear connection, a good hacker cannot miss here.

Probably an individual, and his individual political vision could be
able to keep sort of autonomy or independence while working in Soros
circle. Yet it can only be a modest one, a liberal kind. What we read
from Calin Dan's 97 email to net-time list, even that was quite not
possible. Morally, in my opinion it is not even an issue, being part
of conspiracies of Soros (not the Soros conspiracy) is not a simple
thing, or joke.

He does not rely only on soft-velvet glows to fist countries down; or
only deploys tech tools for online transitions. The guy has involved
and does involve in dirty stuff too; in his tool kit there are
assassinations, spying, military coups, civil wars, or financing
armament and war parties, you name it.

Worse of all about not having a proper theory of class fractions and
Soros place in fractured class struggle is deadly. Soros’ operations,
as a class actor, have contributed massively in regenerating fascism
in Hungary, Russia, Turkey, Egypt.. and Trump too is partly of his
creation -and partly of the other fractions of finance capital against
which he might be struggling or resisting, but they have built a
transnational ‘deep state’ during the 80s and 90s. Of course fascists
own creativity and the despair of the masses too are part of the
story. Still one can make a sad collection of standardized Alex Jones
stories, in every language now; Jones became millionaire but almost in
each country where Soros operated there emerged many Joneses, Soros’
class operations fed conspiracy theories, and in return they enriched
the right wing bases. When seeing the involvement of liberal / radical
left-civil society coalitions with Soros’ operations masses bought
conspiracy theories and Ergodan, Orban, Putin, gained and consolidated
their power. They are growing on the fear of external threat and they
too create their own conspiracies; then national leftists and
ultra-right merges at the bottom again against the Soros led (plus NWO
conspiracy as a bonus)... This shit almost everywhere. And liberal and
libertarian nativity, liberal-left alliances 

Re: morlock elloi

[Sascha D. Freudenheim]

To paraphrase from the old joke, Long-time lurker, first-time writer 
here... (Ok, not quite first time.)


I found Felix's and Ted's responses both instructive and engaging, and 
want to respond to two specific things:


1) Both Felix and Ted mention concerns about insularity. As a long-time 
reader, and without being too glib, I would like to reassure you of the 
correctness of your concerns. :)


The discussions here on Nettime often remind me of all the old jokes 
about how academic fights are the fiercest because the spoils are so 
small. There is, in my view, little incentive for getting involved. And 
the few times I have offered a perspective of my own, well, let's just 
say it has not encouraged me much further. If the list of subscribers is 
in the hundreds, let alone the thousands, one would never know it based 
on the number of consistent voices here.


Likewise, I share the concern about tone, tendencies towards (very!) 
fixed perspectives on particular subjects, etc. Again, not especially 
conducive to widening the circle of participation.


You might (rightly) then ask: why stay on the list? Well, I'm omnivorous 
in my consumption of information. While I may only read 1% of what comes 
through, that 1% is certainly interesting. That's something.


2) It would overstate the case to say that I "long" for the days of 
moderation. But I share what I gather is Felix's own nostalgia for it. 
The flow of responses under moderation was different, and perhaps 
better. Never having had the responsibility for moderating the list, I 
make no claims as to the ease of the process; it was clearly a 
significant responsibility and one for which I was always grateful, as a 
reader. Removing the moderation merely means we must all be better 
digital citizens, to reflect the community we want to have. (If only it 
were so simple, right?)


Sascha


On 4/8/18 4:15 PM, Felix Stalder wrote:

When we turned off moderation a couple of months ago, we did so because
we perceived that nettime was limiting itself by too many implicit rules
that had accumulated over time. So we decided to break one, abolish our
position as moderators, as an invitation others to break a few more in
the hope to make room for some new voices/ideas/styles etc. Kinda worked...

For me, the value of the list has always been that it creates a
collective space for reflection. That's a delicate thing. If it becomes
too cozy, it turns into an self-reflective in-group, if it become to
confrontational, then there is little change of actually thinking
together, rather everyone digs in their heels.

I still like the non-moderated flow, but I dislike the sucking noise of
real-time. It turns out, at least for me, one of the best things that
moderation did was to induce semi-random delays, simply because we never
worked on a fixed schedule when to do the manual work of moderation.
Sometimes a few hours would pass, sometimes more a full day before the
message got approved.

We were thinking about ways to introduce that delay again, without
reverting back to moderation. Of course, it could be done, but we didn't
do it. So, lets see where this goes. We can break a few more rules if it
helps to push forward our collective attempt to understand and do
something in the present -- whatever that is for each the 4500 people on
the list.

Felix





On 2018-04-08 21:18, tbyfield wrote:

Hmmm.

morlock's style has struck me as problematic at times, but other
problems concern me much more: the obstinate gender bias, the prevalence
of a few voices, the lack of experimentation, and sedentary/habitual
tendencies in subject, style, regional focus. I get that his/her/their
mail might be a frequent low-level irritant for some people, the kind of
thing that sparks eruptions. But for me the nature of that eruption
matters more than the cause: ad-homimen attacks, people ordering each
other around, and people who've never tired of letting the world
remember that they 'founded' nettime decades ago leaping to the
barricades in private mail to un-propose a "permanent ban." If we're
going to take any drastic action, it'll be to permanently ban anyone who
proposes permanently banning someone else.

Felix and I have spent twenty years tending to this list, so our views
are, at the very least, well informed. Felix can speak for himself if he
wants, but I think the tendencies above are a more serious threat than
the pace or tone of any contributor. If it's true that one person "is
killing the list," then this list is dead already. If it's not true,
then it says a lot that such a claim would go unquestioned. Not about
the person who said it (more boring ad-hominem stuff, bleh) but about
deeper shifts — for example, in whether people trust that an environment
like this can change organically or instead needs draconian
'leadership.' If it does, it's dead.

A year or two or three ago, I thought the list was pretty much dead. But
it has a funny habit of rising from the grave and 

Re: morlock elloi

[Jaromil]

dear Ted,

On Sun, 08 Apr 2018, tbyfield wrote:

> twitterish performance of a cynical old white techie

Oh BTW do not miss this http://n-gate.com

It replaced my weekly morlockelloi's dose.

beware it may replace also nettime one day :^)))
na, just joking.

but hey, what is happening now? I feel a bit uncomfortable looking at
the waves this scaramuche has spawned. its already more than one
thread. Orsan is running around like a suicide bunny in conspiracy
land. There is a new thread with Soros in the subject, accusing
Francesca and Evgeny of some sort of ancestral sin of Soros-puppetry,
likely funneled through Rosa Luxemburg's foundation, right after
Simona accused Francesca of terrible but undefined corruption crimes.

I am not sure. I mean. It is a bit hilarious :^)
Where did Soros came into this story exactly?!
Oh maybe its about Hungary's Orbanization?
BTW, is David Orban the cousing of Viktor?
I'd be surprised. Such a nice guy!

ciao

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Putting Soros to its place

[Örsan Şenalp]

sorry forgot to add the morozov-bria booklet:
http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/rethinking-the-smart-city/

On 9 April 2018 at 12:37, Örsan Şenalp  wrote:
> It is still really hard to find non-(right wing and alike copy of
> left-wing)conspiracy analysis of Soros-left relationship, with good
> content as Geert Lovink was complaining in his 2000 The Art of Being
> Independent.   Just compiled to revalue Geert's very useful series of
> interviews and writings on the Soros issue below. These are the
> initial one I gathered to analyse, I am sure there are more written by
> Geert and others.
>
> Civil Society, Fanaticism, and Digital Reality: A Conversation with
> Slavoj Zizek by Geert Lovink (21/2/1996):
> http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/civil-society-fanaticism-and-digital-reality-a-conversation-with-slavoj-zizek/
>
> May 10, 1997, Calin Dan's email to the net-time list:
> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00050.html
>
> SubReal and Romanian new media arts, Geert Lovink interviews with
> Calin Dan — February 10, 2000:
> http://geertlovink.org/interviews/interview-with-calin-dan/
>
> The Art of Being Independent. On NGOs and the Soros debate by Geert
> Lovink, 2000: http://www.cfront.org/cf00book/en/geert-soros-en.html
>
> ...
>
> and the last one below just got published two days ago, while the
> hearings of the Morlock case was opening on the list. It is a great
> text, which confirms my uninformed opinion on the connection between
> Soros' launch of war at Silicon Valley giants in Davos last January,
> and  following (isolated) Analytica-Facebook campaign. This reminds me
> Soros' 18 billion USD worth wealth transfer to OSF at the end of last
> year:
> Let’s Talk about Social MediaBy Geert Lovink, April 7, 2018 at 10:48 am
> http://networkcultures.org/geert/2018/04/07/lets-talk-about-social-media/
>
> In January, when Soros was kicking of his war, there came out another
> pamphlet from Rosa Luxemburg NY office, prepared by Evgeny Morozov and
> Francesca Bria which presents a critique of Smart Cities that are
> modelled in the image of Wall Street and Silicon Valley (fellowship of
> money dealing and interest bearing capital as in Capital Vol. 3 and
> meta-data capital).
>
> Geert was rightly asking and calling for a good left analysis of
> Soros, in his 2000 piece. I wonder if he thinks is there such critical
> analysis as such  today. In my opinion we have a good class based
> global political economy analysis that puts Soro, and the
> transnational civil society-chain it created, in its place:
> https://www.academia.edu/35601607/Surveillance_Capitalism_and_Crisis
>
> Looking at which one can analyse ones own and other's positioning
> culturally, politically, and economically in and around the complex
> class struggle taking all of us down.
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Putting Soros to its place

[Örsan Şenalp]

It is still really hard to find non-(right wing and alike copy of
left-wing)conspiracy analysis of Soros-left relationship, with good
content as Geert Lovink was complaining in his 2000 The Art of Being
Independent.   Just compiled to revalue Geert's very useful series of
interviews and writings on the Soros issue below. These are the
initial one I gathered to analyse, I am sure there are more written by
Geert and others.

Civil Society, Fanaticism, and Digital Reality: A Conversation with
Slavoj Zizek by Geert Lovink (21/2/1996):
http://ctheory.net/ctheory_wp/civil-society-fanaticism-and-digital-reality-a-conversation-with-slavoj-zizek/

May 10, 1997, Calin Dan's email to the net-time list:
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00050.html

SubReal and Romanian new media arts, Geert Lovink interviews with
Calin Dan — February 10, 2000:
http://geertlovink.org/interviews/interview-with-calin-dan/

The Art of Being Independent. On NGOs and the Soros debate by Geert
Lovink, 2000: http://www.cfront.org/cf00book/en/geert-soros-en.html

...

and the last one below just got published two days ago, while the
hearings of the Morlock case was opening on the list. It is a great
text, which confirms my uninformed opinion on the connection between
Soros' launch of war at Silicon Valley giants in Davos last January,
and  following (isolated) Analytica-Facebook campaign. This reminds me
Soros' 18 billion USD worth wealth transfer to OSF at the end of last
year:
Let’s Talk about Social MediaBy Geert Lovink, April 7, 2018 at 10:48 am
http://networkcultures.org/geert/2018/04/07/lets-talk-about-social-media/

In January, when Soros was kicking of his war, there came out another
pamphlet from Rosa Luxemburg NY office, prepared by Evgeny Morozov and
Francesca Bria which presents a critique of Smart Cities that are
modelled in the image of Wall Street and Silicon Valley (fellowship of
money dealing and interest bearing capital as in Capital Vol. 3 and
meta-data capital).

Geert was rightly asking and calling for a good left analysis of
Soros, in his 2000 piece. I wonder if he thinks is there such critical
analysis as such  today. In my opinion we have a good class based
global political economy analysis that puts Soro, and the
transnational civil society-chain it created, in its place:
https://www.academia.edu/35601607/Surveillance_Capitalism_and_Crisis

Looking at which one can analyse ones own and other's positioning
culturally, politically, and economically in and around the complex
class struggle taking all of us down.
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Francesca Bria: Our data is valuable. Here's how we can take that value back

[Rachel O' Dwyer]

While I think that  it's great to discuss the politics of projects such as
DECODE, I don't see the utility of using a short op-ed written for a
general Guardian-reading audience as the jumping off point for that. Why
not engage with the project's more detailed reports and technical
documentation and then offer constructive critique and feedback??

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Örsan Şenalp  wrote:

> One wonders if, as of 2018, there remained any non co-opted hackers who
> are fighting back, or willing to do so, while acting autonomously from the
> capital and the capitalist state.
>
> I had my informed opinion about Barcelona but hearing from Simona now, I
> think some one either has to spell it out, or give some references to open
> up what sort of fraud it is, if it is.
>
> In support of for Carlo's response, or for extended version of his point,
> check out this fully automated loading port in China
> .
>
> This discussion is not 'digital fudalism' and how to fight against it.
>
> It is about the number of 'poor'oletariat (plus precariat) or the world
> reaching up to 4 to 6 billion if not more; surveillance/meta-data
> capitalism and its mechanisms rising for socialisation-control-dispose of
> these people. In this nexus it is also about how the future of IoT will
> evolve around the cooperation between globalist/atanticist ruling classes
> and China's state classes; the OBOR project, the networked hubs of
> automated docks and ports so on. This is the base of the emerging new
> shit.
>
> I though that the Barcelona vision of techno sovereignty, or fearless
> cities, were linked to a fraud mainly because of Morozov's, choosing
> Barcelona as a base, as a Soros agent as he was during the Eastern European
> transition operation (online transitions). This has been a global good
> governance vision of the 1980-1990 era, before the rentier money capital
> high jacked the commanding heights. There is no turning back to good global
> governance neoliberal bullshit.
>
> No voice coming from Barcelona, nor from other places, addressed how
> hackers (as McKenize Wark uses the term) will take on the mission of
> bridging and uniting the proletariat of the global south and precariat of
> the global north, to rise up against the oppressors of all kinds weather
> state, corporate, financial, industrial, military...
>
> The oppressed people's reverse-engineers, or hackers, are those think of
> and aim at the enemy at that global level. Like great worker engineer and
> socialist Netti does in Bogdanov's 1912 novel Engineer Menni
> , yet in another planet. The
> question is can we manage what Netti did but on Earth?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 April 2018 at 13:40, Jaromil  wrote:
>
>>
>> dear Joseph,
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2018, Joseph Rabie wrote:
>>
>> >Hallo all,
>> >This statement by Jaromil is very revealing:
>> >
>> >  obviously you are reading just an opinion piece for the Guardian's
>> >  large audience. I would love if we can find a way so that your
>> >  attention is spent on more appropriate information that only you
>> and a
>> >  few other people can understand about DECODE.
>>
>> yes Joe but pleeease, I'm not revealing: I'm consciously writing. I
>> love literature, I know we are in a public space and I definitely mean
>> what I write. I'm not slipping things out of my mind so that can be
>> "revealed" by people accusing me of being an elitist. So please Joe,
>> chill pill, ok?
>>
>> >"that only you and a few other people can understand"...  So - if
>> >I understand correctly - according to Jaromil, there is on the
>> >one hand, a technically savvy elite, and on the other, the
>> >ignorant rest of us.
>>
>> To acknowledge the problem, rather than negate it, is a start towards
>> the solution. Please for a moment think about your slanted attempt at
>> framing. Through the (rather enormous, yes, because we do work for
>> that money) narrative of DECODE, you will clearly find that the effort
>> behind the newly released software https://zenroom.dyne.org and other
>> ongoing developments is that of making intelligible technical
>> knowledge that only a few elites can understand and therefore manage.
>>
>> Actually, a lot of my hands-on and theoretical work on technology is
>> about this.
>>
>> So then yes. I know Carlo knows C language and technical architectures
>> very well and yes, knowing his level of knowledge: its a very limited
>> minority of people who can read that and assess it.
>>
>> With regards to some specific domains, like that of cryptographic
>> trasformations on privacy entitlements and credentials, I believe that
>> through the development of domain specific languages the gap can be
>> overcome. This is part of what I see as I perceive as my own political
>> mission in DECODE. I articulated aspects of this approach here
>> 

Re: morlock elloi

[Patrice Riemens]

On 2018-04-08 22:15, Felix Stalder wrote:

When we turned off moderation a couple of months ago, we did so because
we perceived that nettime was limiting itself by too many implicit 
rules

that had accumulated over time. So we decided to break one, abolish our
position as moderators, as an invitation others to break a few more in
the hope to make room for some new voices/ideas/styles etc. Kinda 
worked...


For me, the value of the list has always been that it creates a
collective space for reflection. That's a delicate thing. If it becomes
too cozy, it turns into an self-reflective in-group, if it become to
confrontational, then there is little change of actually thinking
together, rather everyone digs in their heels.

I still like the non-moderated flow, but I dislike the sucking noise of
real-time. It turns out, at least for me, one of the best things that
moderation did was to induce semi-random delays, simply because we 
never

worked on a fixed schedule when to do the manual work of moderation.
Sometimes a few hours would pass, sometimes more a full day before the
message got approved.

We were thinking about ways to introduce that delay again, without
reverting back to moderation. Of course, it could be done, but we 
didn't
do it. So, lets see where this goes. We can break a few more rules if 
it

helps to push forward our collective attempt to understand and do
something in the present -- whatever that is for each the 4500 people 
on

the list.

Felix





On 2018-04-08 21:18, tbyfield wrote:

Hmmm.

morlock's style has struck me as problematic at times, but other
problems concern me much more: the obstinate gender bias, the 
prevalence

of a few voices, the lack of experimentation, and sedentary/habitual
tendencies in subject, style, regional focus. I get that his/her/their
mail might be a frequent low-level irritant for some people, the kind 
of

thing that sparks eruptions. But for me the nature of that eruption
matters more than the cause: ad-homimen attacks, people ordering each
other around, and people who've never tired of letting the world
remember that they 'founded' nettime decades ago leaping to the
barricades in private mail to un-propose a "permanent ban." If we're
going to take any drastic action, it'll be to permanently ban anyone 
who

proposes permanently banning someone else.

Felix and I have spent twenty years tending to this list, so our views
are, at the very least, well informed. Felix can speak for himself if 
he

wants, but I think the tendencies above are a more serious threat than
the pace or tone of any contributor. If it's true that one person "is
killing the list," then this list is dead already. If it's not true,
then it says a lot that such a claim would go unquestioned. Not about
the person who said it (more boring ad-hominem stuff, bleh) but about
deeper shifts — for example, in whether people trust that an 
environment

like this can change organically or instead needs draconian
'leadership.' If it does, it's dead.

A year or two or three ago, I thought the list was pretty much dead. 
But
it has a funny habit of rising from the grave and wobbling around for 
a
while, and there's been a trickle of people de-lurking or 
first-posting.
Nettime needs much more of that, and a much wider range of 
perspectives,

styles, and tolerances. But that kind of pious plea that 'we can do
better' smells like something Zuckerberg would say, doesn't it? So let
me moderate that: we also need to do worse — much worse. Doing worse 
has
always been a sign of life on this list. Some of you will remember 
Paul
Garrin, integer/antiorp/nn, and jodi — entities that, in different 
ways,
embodied and exploited the list's most extreme possibilities. There 
was

a time when infuriating provocations were seen as good.

As usual, Jaromil squeezed five interesting ideas into two sentences:


maybe he passed on his account. The sort of replying-myself thing he
is doing shows that some sort of twitter ab-user has taken place and
the quantity of activity indicates there may be more people behind 
the

account now.


I like the idea that morlock is a sort of anti-antiorp. I don't think
it's true, but it doesn't matter: nettime has always actively 
supported

a false-names policy. But the idea that morlock is an improper name, a
nym for a twitterish performance of a cynical old white techie, is 
much
more interesting than bourgie pearl-clutching about how this is 
nettime

and we...we have standards!

I know this is sort of old-school, but if you don't like something,
maybe try (a) contacting the person privately with a suggestion and/or
(b) filtering your mail.

Cheers,
Ted



Hehe, these are two good posts immo (together with Allan Siegel's 
cool-headed view on the issue that triggered this whole bandobast).


A suggestion: would there exist a programme that automatically buffers 
any post less than 10 (or 5, or ...) lines long on a given thread and 
'digests' it, like the mods used to do, 

collaborating without consensus / was re. DECODE

[usman haque]

i've been a nettime lurker for a couple of decades, and it's decode that
finally brings me to the table... i am somewhat involved in the project (*)
and i feel the need to defend the idea that you *can* do something without
waiting till you're able to change the *entire* world. decode has dozens,
hundreds, thousands of issues that each of us, the contributors, could use
to critique it and tear it down – believe me, we have considered many of
the things already brought up on the list. we each have our ideological
differences. but the one thing that unites everyone who is part of decode
is that we just do not believe the status quo (re. data, technology,
governance, etc. etc. etc.) is acceptable. it's this belief that brought us
all together. i don't think any of us believe that a technological hotfix
is all that's needed to upend the status quo, so having some impact at the
city level was crucial.

it seems to me, if you want to move the needle at all, if you want to try
to affect some change at all to the trajectory we're on, if you want to be
able to point at something and say we can conceive of a different future,
we can build a different future, and here are some of the fragments that
might go towards bringing that future about, then you learn to collaborate
without full consensus, and you learn to just get on and build the damn
thing and work it out despite all your differences – this is essential,
because any real world system has to accommodate, and be generated through,
differences of ideological stance. (matthew fuller and i wrote something
about this in urban versioning system several years ago). i know that every
single thing i've ever put into this world has massive socio-political, and
inconsistent, holes in it; when i look closely, so does everything i find
joy in in this world.

the debate about whether you work from without (with immaculate ideological
foundations) or from within (with the messy reality of everyday life) is
not very interesting – if you care just choose one and get on with it. with
decode, we opted for the latter, it's as simple as that. and i'm pretty
happy with where we've got to.

i would reaffirm what jaromil said: if you want to provide a deeper
critique, please have a look at the actual decode documentation, rather
than francesca's guardian article -- it's not a question of techno elitism,
i'm pretty happy with how she wrote about decode, it is the simple reality
that when you publish something in mass-media you necessarily make short
cuts, strip away context, phrase things differently, etc. etc. etc. we
would all appreciate informed critique even more if you have suggestions
for what to do next.

m(-_-)m

usman

(* thingful is one of the consortium partners, so my involvement is in
working with my team)
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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: