Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
This. Ignoring the presence of intermediary (with own agenda) between the technology and its deployer/user, and calling the intermediary 'the technology', is the most dangerous aspect of present indoctrination. We are slowly (or not so slowly) sliding back to the pre-Gutenberg era, where only the Church can produce and interpret books. Because printing, writing and reading is so complicated and inconvenient. Somewhere along the line we as a culture have forgotten the distinction between 'technology' and 'services'. A 'technology' is really just a method or system for applying knowledge to a problem; any individual or business could choose to implement (or commission, or lease, or purchase outright) that technology independently and control it completely. A 'service', on the other hand, might use technology, but individuals and businesses who use such services do not own or control that technology directly. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I do not disagree with this sentiment. My argument is about technology versus services, not about whether technology is neutral (in general it is not). Best wishes Geoff On 11 July 2019 12:57:25 BST, "xDxD.vs.xDxD" wrote: >hi! > > > >> Somewhere along the line we as a culture have forgotten the >distinction >> between >> 'technology' and 'services'. A 'technology' is really just a method >or >> system >> for applying knowledge to a problem; any individual or business could >> choose to >> implement (or commission, or lease, or purchase outright) that >technology >> independently and control it completely. > > >I don't know if I understood correctly, but this could be a very >dangerous >position indeed. > >Technology is far from neutral: we invent technology just as much as >technology invents us. > >ciao! >s # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
hi! > Somewhere along the line we as a culture have forgotten the distinction > between > 'technology' and 'services'. A 'technology' is really just a method or > system > for applying knowledge to a problem; any individual or business could > choose to > implement (or commission, or lease, or purchase outright) that technology > independently and control it completely. I don't know if I understood correctly, but this could be a very dangerous position indeed. Technology is far from neutral: we invent technology just as much as technology invents us. ciao! s # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 05:08:12AM -0700, John Preston wrote: > To give an example, say someone was organising some direct action. There > are some communications tools like maybe Signal, that should provide > privacy and the basic utility of instant messaging. But consider if we > want a tool like Doodle (group scheduling, https://doodle.com/ ). Unless > someone has build a 'secure Doodle', there is no way that 99% of users > could slot this in to their use case. Instead, if a computing platform > is simple enough, you could say "oh I'll just wrap the Doodle component > in our Signal channel" or something, there should be obvious ways to > compose everything within the system, and that needs to be part of the > user experience. Hi John, I would suggest that we need to be careful here. Signal and Doodle are not tools. They are services provided by specific organisations. Somewhere along the line we as a culture have forgotten the distinction between 'technology' and 'services'. A 'technology' is really just a method or system for applying knowledge to a problem; any individual or business could choose to implement (or commission, or lease, or purchase outright) that technology independently and control it completely. A 'service', on the other hand, might use technology, but individuals and businesses who use such services do not own or control that technology directly. Many cultures have chosen to protect innovators who develop technologies. Patents are an example of such protection. However, the justification for the protection is that any individuals or businesses with sufficient resources could choose to implement such technologies after their underlying science and designs are made public. That justification does not apply to services, although for some reason a narrative has persisted that innovators who develop services also deserve public protection. They do not. Yes, it certainly costs less to build systems from serviecs rather than from technologies; this is because the businesses who collect rents (and other benefits such as data brokerage fees) from operating services can subsidise the costs. But this does not serve the public interest. Best wishes -- Geoff # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I believe the fundamental issue goes beyond requiring just public ownership/operation of these technologies but also public understanding, and ties in with the HCI discussion in parallel thread "Has net-art lost political significance?". I am interested in build a new computer that is drastically simpler than what we currently have, and with some different things to focus on in its design (eg computer as a document system before a calculator). To give an example, say someone was organising some direct action. There are some communications tools like maybe Signal, that should provide privacy and the basic utility of instant messaging. But consider if we want a tool like Doodle (group scheduling, https://doodle.com/ ). Unless someone has build a 'secure Doodle', there is no way that 99% of users could slot this in to their use case. Instead, if a computing platform is simple enough, you could say "oh I'll just wrap the Doodle component in our Signal channel" or something, there should be obvious ways to compose everything within the system, and that needs to be part of the user experience. The kinds of redevelopment I am talking about are ongoing, there is a whole legacy of people doing research in a similar thread, so now I ask why have we not yet realised such a project, or rather what is needed for further development/research? I think simpler computing hardware, even simpler than a RasPi, and then building up a custom environment from there, might be part of the answer. J On 2019-07-07 08:06, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: > Platforms (Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, and so on) are not the answer; they > are > operated by illegitimate gatekeepers who have no place in the conversation or > its management. Some of us would never use such a method to communicate, nor > should we be expected to do so. > > Suggest that in an ideal world there would be no gatekeepers at all other than > those who use or (if applicable) moderate the list. Lists would generally be > invitation-only, even as the policy for some lists might be to furnish an > invitation to anyone who asks. Mail might use SMTP but not DNS or IP > addresses > to identify individual persons; all persons would be able to generate as many > unique IDs as they want and use nothing other than those IDs to send messages > and requests for invitations. > > But we would need to decide that the benefit of such a system outweighs > the cost of excluding people who would find anything that avoids > platformisation to be too hard. Importantly, such a system would actually be > more inclusive than platforms, since platforms assign the power to exclude to > those who don't deserve that power. > > Geoff > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:29AM +0200, Andr?? Rebentisch wrote: >> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: >> > >> > Hi Andr?, >> > >> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead?? I'm very far out of the >> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. >> >> Dear Max, >> >> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting >> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list >> infrastructure channels. >> >> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online >> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, >> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude >> channel rules became obsolete. >> >> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality >> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or >> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior >> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead >> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when >> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content >> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop >> up again after an archive regeneration etc. >> >> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an >> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of >> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that >> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on >> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to >> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) >> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot >> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. >> >> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't >> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are >> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no >> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. >> >> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list >> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead >> communication
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Platforms (Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, and so on) are not the answer; they are operated by illegitimate gatekeepers who have no place in the conversation or its management. Some of us would never use such a method to communicate, nor should we be expected to do so. Suggest that in an ideal world there would be no gatekeepers at all other than those who use or (if applicable) moderate the list. Lists would generally be invitation-only, even as the policy for some lists might be to furnish an invitation to anyone who asks. Mail might use SMTP but not DNS or IP addresses to identify individual persons; all persons would be able to generate as many unique IDs as they want and use nothing other than those IDs to send messages and requests for invitations. But we would need to decide that the benefit of such a system outweighs the cost of excluding people who would find anything that avoids platformisation to be too hard. Importantly, such a system would actually be more inclusive than platforms, since platforms assign the power to exclude to those who don't deserve that power. Geoff On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:29AM +0200, Andr?? Rebentisch wrote: > Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > > > Hi Andr?, > > > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead?? I'm very far out of the > > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. > > Dear Max, > > almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting > anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list > infrastructure channels. > > Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online > communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, > mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude > channel rules became obsolete. > > A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality > communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or > opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior > consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead > to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when > you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content > from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop > up again after an archive regeneration etc. > > Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an > exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of > Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that > country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on > his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to > converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) > could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot > respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. > > Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't > moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are > suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no > org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. > > You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list > communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead > communication channels come to new light. > > Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > > > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > > of technological advancement).? You can put a bunch of content in an > > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. > > Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > > > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content.? If no one > > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? > > Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose > the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious > debate and thought. > > Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the > insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always > hate mobs that try to engage us. > > Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but > to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) > explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am > after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ > > 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online > debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... > only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past > and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or > her pivotal moment. > > Best, > Andr? > > > #
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Am 04/07/19 um 02:57 schrieb BishopZ: > Open Archives in return could lead > to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when > you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content > from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop > up again after an archive regeneration etc. Nowhere else? IMHO the standards for mailing lists were developped in BITNET. Open archives were the usual case. Then came jurisdiction in cyberspace and if you want to stay out of jail stay out of Germany. Germany is a difficult case. They never really leart how to be free. H. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
The hardest part about computer science is the naming of things. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:05 PM BishopZ wrote: > What is netttime? > Same as Diaspora- may they rest in peace? > Byzantine perhaps? > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:41 PM BishopZ wrote: > >> [image: wSxgs.png] >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch >> wrote: >> >>> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: >>> > >>> > Hi André, >>> > >>> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the >>> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. >>> >>> Dear Max, >>> >>> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting >>> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list >>> infrastructure channels. >>> >>> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online >>> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, >>> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude >>> channel rules became obsolete. >>> >>> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality >>> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or >>> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior >>> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead >>> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when >>> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content >>> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop >>> up again after an archive regeneration etc. >>> >>> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an >>> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of >>> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that >>> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on >>> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to >>> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) >>> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot >>> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. >>> >>> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't >>> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are >>> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no >>> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. >>> >>> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list >>> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead >>> communication channels come to new light. >>> >>> Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. >>> >>> > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a >>> > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless >>> > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an >>> > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. >>> >>> Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? >>> >>> > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one >>> > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten >>> > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? >>> >>> Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose >>> the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious >>> debate and thought. >>> >>> Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the >>> insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always >>> hate mobs that try to engage us. >>> >>> Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but >>> to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) >>> explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am >>> after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ >>> >>> 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online >>> debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... >>> only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past >>> and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or >>> her pivotal moment. >>> >>> Best, >>> André >>> >>> >>> # 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: >>> >> >> >> -- >> ((º Ω º)) >> >> http://bishopZ.com >> ___ >> > > > -- > ((º Ω º)) > > http://bishopZ.com > ___ > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
What is netttime? Same as Diaspora- may they rest in peace? Byzantine perhaps? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:41 PM BishopZ wrote: > [image: wSxgs.png] > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch wrote: > >> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: >> > >> > Hi André, >> > >> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the >> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. >> >> Dear Max, >> >> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting >> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list >> infrastructure channels. >> >> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online >> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, >> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude >> channel rules became obsolete. >> >> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality >> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or >> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior >> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead >> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when >> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content >> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop >> up again after an archive regeneration etc. >> >> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an >> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of >> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that >> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on >> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to >> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) >> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot >> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. >> >> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't >> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are >> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no >> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. >> >> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list >> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead >> communication channels come to new light. >> >> Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. >> >> > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a >> > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless >> > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an >> > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. >> >> Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? >> >> > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one >> > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten >> > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? >> >> Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose >> the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious >> debate and thought. >> >> Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the >> insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always >> hate mobs that try to engage us. >> >> Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but >> to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) >> explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am >> after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ >> >> 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online >> debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... >> only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past >> and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or >> her pivotal moment. >> >> Best, >> André >> >> >> # 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: >> > > > -- > ((º Ω º)) > > http://bishopZ.com > ___ > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com ___ # 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:
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
[image: wSxgs.png] On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch wrote: > Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > > > Hi André, > > > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the > > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. > > Dear Max, > > almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting > anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list > infrastructure channels. > > Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online > communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, > mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude > channel rules became obsolete. > > A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality > communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or > opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior > consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead > to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when > you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content > from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop > up again after an archive regeneration etc. > > Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an > exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of > Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that > country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on > his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to > converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) > could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot > respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. > > Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't > moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are > suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no > org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. > > You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list > communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead > communication channels come to new light. > > Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > > > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an > > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. > > Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > > > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one > > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? > > Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose > the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious > debate and thought. > > Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the > insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always > hate mobs that try to engage us. > > Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but > to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) > explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am > after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ > > 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online > debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... > only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past > and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or > her pivotal moment. > > Best, > André > > > # 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: > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com ___ # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > Hi André, > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. Dear Max, almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list infrastructure channels. Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude channel rules became obsolete. A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop up again after an archive regeneration etc. Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead communication channels come to new light. Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious debate and thought. Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always hate mobs that try to engage us. Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or her pivotal moment. Best, André # 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: Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Thanks Nina, Molly, André, David, Allan, and everyone else for all your insight on this thread. I'd like to chime in with a quote from our own slice of web [1]: is not just a mailing list but an effort to formulate an international, networked discourse that neither promotes a dominant euphoria (to sell products) nor continues the cynical pessimism, spread by journalists and intellectuals in the 'old' media who generalize about 'new' media with no clear understanding of their communication aspects. we have produced, and will continue to produce books, readers, and web sites in various languages so an 'immanent' net critique will circulate both on- and offline. The internet, as is the want of any globalised socio-technical system, has de-localised what started off as a small group of people operating in a particular time and place: there are no borders on the Internet. Perhaps we do not need to state a purpose for the list, its character is determined by its history and content, which I suppose is why these meta discussions can be (a sign of) destabilising in an waning community. Certainly it is useful to extract common themes. I like 'netcriticism' as a focus, as it ties in very much with my developing perspective. In netcrit terms I no longer consider 'the net' to be the Internet, or even just our increasingly complex relationships with machines, but rather an all-encompassing socio-technical system, composed of people, computers, materials, machines, and various relations and transactions between them -- similar to Hakim Bey's conception but I try to think of it a model of the economic and power relations in the physical world, rather than as just an abstract space of information which might map on to the world somehow. In that respect I see the list as covering quite a wide area of discourse, but with a focus on our contemporary setting, and hopefully with a pragmatic slant too. I believe we (civilization) are nearing both ecological and social tipping points, and we need to take action to discover and fix the parts of this sociotechnical system which are causing harm to the planet and our local communities. ✌️ [1] https://www.nettime.org/info.html # 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:
Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Forwarded on behalf of Nina -- Forwarded message - From: "Nina Temporär" Date: Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:59 AM Subject: Aw: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. To: Molly Hankwitz Hi Molly, Thanks, I have a similar perspective , but wasnt allowed to post it on nettime - unfortunately it seems that disallowing Andreas to disseminate Standard sexist phrases like I Would probably have no other topics than sexism, has put me on a watch list. So, even if we have different opinions about JA, Would you mind forwarding this? (see below, only that Part. ) Thanks! I am esepecially concerned about this new regulation ruling out the big names, as Ted and Felix explicitly came up with it after I asked them for help in relation to the onlist sexism and racism and offlist Harrassment by JA disciples (no big names) I was exposed to after critisizing JA. But the current development is nothing I Would have endorsed - it doesnt heal the racism of a Morlock Elloi, it only leads to the big names writing privately somewhere Else, which is a pity. I mean, the amount of New people writing here is great, but I dont see why both couldnt coexist. Best N My mail that didnt get through: I wasn't in favor of the priniciple of disallowing the people who usually write here to continue with the same frequency. They probably now simply discuss in private, elsewhere. But I think it's great that so many "new" people are writing here. Saying nettime would have lost its quality is an insult right into the face of these people. And not even true. And sometimes phrasing new perceptions needs a while - and is a courageous endeavour - whereas following beaten paths of the discursive findings of paßt decades might gleam with terminological perfection, but reveal at best only extra layers of outdated truths. Especially in the field of tech/media one should always be aware of this - even more so, as not only the technology we are using is rapidly changing, but also the brains of new generations suceeding as recipients of these. That said, I always did like the discourse the nettime Community was known for, and I'd regard it as a loss if it was impossible for both to co-exist here. But trying to artificially presevere only that one approach here feels like calling for it to become an exhibit in the museum of natural history, with its own display, boxed in under glass, and with its protagontists guaranteed a part in the next sequel of "Night at the Museum"... (although that'd be kinda cute). N Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Juni 2019 um 16:11 Uhr Von: "carlo von lynX" An: nettim...@kein.org Betreff: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago… I think the pro-active moderation was the whole specialty of nettime, fostering high quality and inclusiveness. Since you dropped that (possibly because it was too much work, so I'm not blaming) the list slowly lost its focus just as all the sociologic research I look into predicted… maybe Pit can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C. # 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: > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Juni 2019 um 22:23 Uhr > Von: "Molly Hankwitz" > An: "carlo von lynX" > Cc: nettim...@kein.org > Betreff: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. > > Carlo and nettime! > > Thank you for this, Carlo. I could not agree more, the deliberate effort of > mods to put material that is provocative and worthy on the list...BUT, it > may also be, and this is where mods could also help...that the great net > debates have disappeared or died out. There are new debates, but who is > framing them relative to networks. > > The question comes up more and more - where is the whole idea of networks > that was once? Answer: sorry, social media has everyone blissed out on > their own screen. > > The great debates that enlivened networks of the 90s, have become muddled > to the point that "networks" per se don't seem to carry much weight online > - now its the app, its the website - which don't always reflect a living > community of net-users as we know...or maybe we are imagining networks > differently than before and that does not help. Common interests which > drove the formulation of networks and network 'flows' seem to have been > replaced by something else. Who is the we of any network now... > > I don't know...that was my feeling when I read this. So, yes, we need the > heavies, maybe...to
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Most formerly valuable mailing lists are dead, Carlo. Here you find a recent quote from Joichi Ito: “You know that little girl in The Exorcist? That’s what the internet feels like to me,” Ito said. “You have this little girl and you think she’s going to become this wonderful kid and then she gets possessed and starts becoming this demon. And we have to exorcize her and we have to kind of bring her back.” Source: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/26/18758776/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resisting-reduction-exorcist-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast-interview André Rebentisch # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Carlo and nettime! Thank you for this, Carlo. I could not agree more, the deliberate effort of mods to put material that is provocative and worthy on the list...BUT, it may also be, and this is where mods could also help...that the great net debates have disappeared or died out. There are new debates, but who is framing them relative to networks. The question comes up more and more - where is the whole idea of networks that was once? Answer: sorry, social media has everyone blissed out on their own screen. The great debates that enlivened networks of the 90s, have become muddled to the point that "networks" per se don't seem to carry much weight online - now its the app, its the website - which don't always reflect a living community of net-users as we know...or maybe we are imagining networks differently than before and that does not help. Common interests which drove the formulation of networks and network 'flows' seem to have been replaced by something else. Who is the we of any network now... I don't know...that was my feeling when I read this. So, yes, we need the heavies, maybe...to frame the debates so we can bat our own balls back and forth and to and fro on nettime. Molly On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:12 AM carlo von lynX wrote: > I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago… > I think the pro-active moderation was the whole specialty > of nettime, fostering high quality and inclusiveness. Since > you dropped that (possibly because it was too much work, so > I'm not blaming) the list slowly lost its focus just as all > the sociologic research I look into predicted… maybe Pit > can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C. > > # 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: # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago… I think the pro-active moderation was the whole specialty of nettime, fostering high quality and inclusiveness. Since you dropped that (possibly because it was too much work, so I'm not blaming) the list slowly lost its focus just as all the sociologic research I look into predicted… maybe Pit can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Like Sean I’ve been active long ago, lurking for a decade or more. It’s good to be prodded to contribute. I thought of jumping in during some of the recent discussions, notably the ‘Rage against the machine’ thread, but unsure about how my writing will fit in, as I have been writing fiction these days and thinking in narrative terms. It is difficult to see how it could work in the context of this kind of discussion. Perhaps I will try. Best to all. Jordan > On Jun 8, 2019, at 8:21 AM, Sean Cubitt wrote: > > I've been active long ago, and lurking for a decade or more, with only > sporadic comments and adds: this look like a good prod to get us silent > majority out of the closet. > > the thing that keeps nettime valuable is a) the contributors, timeliness, and > swift smart dialogues and b) that there still seems to be a common purpose. > > social media start taking the forefront about ten years ago. The neo-populist > right begins to replace the neo-liberal right about ten years ago. Is there > some shared diagram? > > Other lists died for their own reasons: one because it seemed like everything > interesting was on blogs, back when the blogosphere was a thing. Another > because a concept / art movement / political trajectory could be exhausted so > fast it scarcely seemed worth inventing new concepts etc. > > Mailing lists are asynchronous, which is great: more time to think; less > kudos for fast reaction times. More consideration in every sense of the word > > in a few days I'll try to post something closer than this reflection on the > medium to what I think this list is for: the aesthetics, politics and > aesthetic politics of the early C21st -- consideration, wonder and hope > > Sean > > > From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org on > behalf of nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > Sent: 08 June 2019 15:45 > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: nettime-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 11 > > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@mail.kein.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > nettime-l Info Page - mx.kein.org > mx.kein.org > -- a moderated mailing list for net criticism is not just a mailing > list but an effort to formulate an international, networked discourse that > neither promotes a dominant euphoria (to sell products) nor continues the > cynical pessimism, spread by journalists and intellectuals in the 'old' media > who generalize about 'new' media with no clear understanding of their > communication aspects ... > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. > (John Preston) >2. The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; > throws in the towel (Bruce Sterling) >3. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. > (John Preston) > > > ------------------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:56 +0100 > From: John Preston > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can > change it. > Message-ID: <07a59428-bf8f-419b-841a-ea06bddb2...@riseup.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Just forwarding this up. > > > Original Message > From: Karim Brohi > Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST > To: John Preston > Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. > > Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion > groups on the Interwebs now. > I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - > which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for > most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. > Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure > intellectual pursuit. > > But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are > too brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". > Blog posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a > specific individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same > precedence as the original post. The post 'belongs' to the
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Hi Renée, RE: I tend to make egregious typos & grammatical mistakes that I don't catch until it's about a week later. Same with me, i'm dyslexic and much prefer making and programming as a way to understand the world. On social media, particularly Twitter, I've learnt not to worry so much, though Nettime is a more intimidating space... Tom On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, at 6:20 AM, Renée Lynn Reizman wrote: > Been a lurker on here for about 2 years. I am constantly thrilled by the > names I see popping up on this listserv. Seems like there are many members on > here who write or create things I admire. The conversations can be a bit > intimidating sometimes, but mostly I avoid chiming in because I tend to make > egregious typos & grammatical mistakes that I don't catch until it's about a > week later. > > Anyways, just wanted to say hello! > > Renée > http://www.reneereizman.com > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM wrote: >> Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to >> nettime-l@mail.kein.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. >> (v...@voyd.com) >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 12:47:10 -0400 >> From: v...@voyd.com >> To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org >> Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can >> change it. >> Message-ID: >> <1560098830.vqwx9ks2884g4...@hostingemail.digitalspace.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Sean and all for these salient replies. >> I have often been active here, but had been offline more than I like >> related to living in Arabia; some things you'd imagine, others not. More >> than anything else, I have been creating a VR research center and doing a >> snowstorm of paperwork. My intentions are to be here more, as my research is >> revving up again. >> >> I value Nettime a great deal in that it remains one of the places where a >> high concentration of fine minds, whether they pop in or out like virtual >> particles int he cyber-aether, usually pop out clear thought. >> >> Another thing is that for the past three years, I have been traveling into >> Central Asia, Married an Iranian, coming to know the Eastern Hemisphere, and >> seeing what Geert Lovink and I had long discussions on here in Abu Dhabi >> relating the slide of Krokerian Bimodernism to American global colonial war >> capitalism under the Plan for the New American Century to the collapse into >> spheres of influence with the rise of Trump. Actually a lot more than >> this, but the flood of understanding has taken a while to coalesce. >> >> Looking forward to more conversation. >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:21:58 +, Sean Cubitt wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I've been active long ago, and lurking for a decade or more, with only >> sporadic comments and adds: this look like a good prod to get us silent >> majority out of the closet. >> >> >> >> the thing that keeps nettime valuable is a) the >> contributors,timeliness, andswift smart dialogues and b) that >> there still seems to be a common purpose. >> >> >> >> social media start taking the forefront about ten years ago. The >> neo-populist right begins to replace the neo-liberal right about ten years >> ago. Is there some shared diagram? >> >> >> >> Other lists died for their own reasons: one because it seemed like >> everything interesting was on blogs, back when the blogosphere was a thing. >> Another because a concept / art movement / political trajectory could be >> exhausted so fast it scarcely seemed worth inventing new concepts etc. >> >> >> >> Mailing lists are asynchronous, which is great: more time to think; less >> kudos for fast reaction times. More consideration in every sense of the word >> >> >> >> in a f
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Been a lurker on here for about 2 years. I am constantly thrilled by the names I see popping up on this listserv. Seems like there are many members on here who write or create things I admire. The conversations can be a bit intimidating sometimes, but mostly I avoid chiming in because I tend to make egregious typos & grammatical mistakes that I don't catch until it's about a week later. Anyways, just wanted to say hello! Renée http://www.reneereizman.com On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM wrote: > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@mail.kein.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. > (v...@voyd.com) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 12:47:10 -0400 > From: v...@voyd.com > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can > change it. > Message-ID: > <1560098830.vqwx9ks2884g4...@hostingemail.digitalspace.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > Thanks, Sean and all for these salient replies. > I have often been active here, but had been offline more than I like > related to living in Arabia; some things you'd imagine, others not. More > than anything else, I have been creating a VR research center and doing a > snowstorm of paperwork. My intentions are to be here more, as my research > is revving up again. > > I value Nettime a great deal in that it remains one of the places where a > high concentration of fine minds, whether they pop in or out like virtual > particles int he cyber-aether, usually pop out clear thought. > > Another thing is that for the past three years, I have been traveling into > Central Asia, Married an Iranian, coming to know the Eastern Hemisphere, > and seeing what Geert Lovink and I had long discussions on here in Abu > Dhabi relating the slide of Krokerian Bimodernism to American global > colonial war capitalism under the Plan for the New American Century to the > collapse into spheres of influence with the rise of Trump. Actually a > lot more than this, but the flood of understanding has taken a while to > coalesce. > > Looking forward to more conversation. > > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:21:58 +, Sean Cubitt wrote: > > > > > > I've been active long ago, and lurking for a decade or more, with only > sporadic comments and adds: this look like a good prod to get us silent > majority out of the closet. > > > > the thing that keeps nettime valuable is a) the > contributors,timeliness, andswift smart dialogues and b) that > there still seems to be a common purpose. > > > > social media start taking the forefront about ten years ago. The > neo-populist right begins to replace the neo-liberal right about ten years > ago. Is there some shared diagram? > > > > Other lists died for their own reasons: one because it seemed like > everything interesting was on blogs, back when the blogosphere was a thing. > Another because a concept / art movement / political trajectory could be > exhausted so fast it scarcely seemed worth inventing new concepts etc. > > > > Mailing lists are asynchronous, which is great: more time to think; less > kudos for fast reaction times. More consideration in every sense of the word > > > > in a few days I'll try to post something closer than this reflection on > the medium to what I think this list is for: the aesthetics,politics > andaestheticpolitics of the early C21st --consideration, > wonder and hope > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org > on behalf of nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org & > lt;nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > Sent: 08 June 2019 15:45 > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: nettime-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 11 > > > > > > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@mail.kein.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > > > > > > > > >
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Thanks, Sean and all for these salient replies. I have often been active here, but had been offline more than I like related to living in Arabia; some things you'd imagine, others not. More than anything else, I have been creating a VR research center and doing a snowstorm of paperwork. My intentions are to be here more, as my research is revving up again. I value Nettime a great deal in that it remains one of the places where a high concentration of fine minds, whether they pop in or out like virtual particles int he cyber-aether, usually pop out clear thought. Another thing is that for the past three years, I have been traveling into Central Asia, Married an Iranian, coming to know the Eastern Hemisphere, and seeing what Geert Lovink and I had long discussions on here in Abu Dhabi relating the slide of Krokerian Bimodernism to American global colonial war capitalism under the Plan for the New American Century to the collapse into spheres of influence with the rise of Trump. Actually a lot more than this, but the flood of understanding has taken a while to coalesce. Looking forward to more conversation. On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:21:58 +, Sean Cubitt wrote: I've been active long ago, and lurking for a decade or more, with only sporadic comments and adds: this look like a good prod to get us silent majority out of the closet. the thing that keeps nettime valuable is a) the contributors,timeliness, andswift smart dialogues and b) that there still seems to be a common purpose. social media start taking the forefront about ten years ago. The neo-populist right begins to replace the neo-liberal right about ten years ago. Is there some shared diagram? Other lists died for their own reasons: one because it seemed like everything interesting was on blogs, back when the blogosphere was a thing. Another because a concept / art movement / political trajectory could be exhausted so fast it scarcely seemed worth inventing new concepts etc. Mailing lists are asynchronous, which is great: more time to think; less kudos for fast reaction times. More consideration in every sense of the word in a few days I'll try to post something closer than this reflection on the medium to what I think this list is for: the aesthetics,politics andaestheticpolitics of the early C21st --consideration, wonder and hope Sean From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org on behalf of nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org Sent: 08 June 2019 15:45 To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: nettime-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 11 Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to nettime-l@mail.kein.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l nettime-l Info Page - mx.kein.org mx.kein.org -- a moderated mailing list for net criticism nettime is not just a mailing list but an effort to formulate an international, networked discourse that neither promotes a dominant euphoria (to sell products) nor continues the cynical pessimism, spread by journalists and intellectuals in the 'old' media who generalize about 'new' media with no clear understanding of their communication aspects ... or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org You can reach the person managing the list at nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. (John Preston) 2. The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel (Bruce Sterling) 3. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. (John Preston) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:56 +0100 From: John Preston wcerf...@riseup.net To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: nettime Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Message-ID: 07a59428-bf8f-419b-841a-ea06bddb2...@riseup.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Just forwarding this up. Original Message From: Karim Brohi ka...@trauma.org Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST To: John Preston wcerf...@riseup.net Subject: Re: nettime Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion groups on the Interwebs now. I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff an
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I've been active long ago, and lurking for a decade or more, with only sporadic comments and adds: this look like a good prod to get us silent majority out of the closet. the thing that keeps nettime valuable is a) the contributors, timeliness, and swift smart dialogues and b) that there still seems to be a common purpose. social media start taking the forefront about ten years ago. The neo-populist right begins to replace the neo-liberal right about ten years ago. Is there some shared diagram? Other lists died for their own reasons: one because it seemed like everything interesting was on blogs, back when the blogosphere was a thing. Another because a concept / art movement / political trajectory could be exhausted so fast it scarcely seemed worth inventing new concepts etc. Mailing lists are asynchronous, which is great: more time to think; less kudos for fast reaction times. More consideration in every sense of the word in a few days I'll try to post something closer than this reflection on the medium to what I think this list is for: the aesthetics, politics and aesthetic politics of the early C21st -- consideration, wonder and hope Sean From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org on behalf of nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org Sent: 08 June 2019 15:45 To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: nettime-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 11 Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to nettime-l@mail.kein.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l nettime-l Info Page - mx.kein.org<http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> mx.kein.org -- a moderated mailing list for net criticism is not just a mailing list but an effort to formulate an international, networked discourse that neither promotes a dominant euphoria (to sell products) nor continues the cynical pessimism, spread by journalists and intellectuals in the 'old' media who generalize about 'new' media with no clear understanding of their communication aspects ... or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org You can reach the person managing the list at nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. (John Preston) 2. The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel (Bruce Sterling) 3. Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. (John Preston) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:56 +0100 From: John Preston To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Message-ID: <07a59428-bf8f-419b-841a-ea06bddb2...@riseup.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Just forwarding this up. Original Message From: Karim Brohi Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST To: John Preston Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion groups on the Interwebs now. I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure intellectual pursuit. But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are too brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". Blog posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a specific individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same precedence as the original post. The post 'belongs' to the originator, not to the community. Maybe usenet/google groups comes close, but nobody uses them - perhaps because there's no (effective) 'app for that', and there has to be an active process of logging in. (Email alerts end up in... email). In brief - I think it's the medium not the message. The whole Internet needs a new medium that encourages long-form discourse and thereby deep community. That was email, but now it isn't email. I don't know what is now. Karim On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:34, John Preston wrote: > Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) > > I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, > I've grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more > conservative or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying > to develop as an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting > critically on the net and its constituent parts
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Each medium of communication has a different quality and bandwidth about it, and we can use a multitude of media -- nettime doesn't have to be /just/ a mailing list. Some of us might be better able to contribute via IRC or other more real-time media. John On 2019-06-08 15:06, John Preston wrote: > Just forwarding this up. > > - > FROM: Karim Brohi > SENT: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST > TO: John Preston > SUBJECT: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change > it. > > Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion > groups on the Interwebs now. > I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - > which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for > most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. > Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure > intellectual pursuit. > > But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are too > brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". Blog > posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a specific > individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same precedence as > the original post. The post 'belongs' to the originator, not to the > community. > > Maybe usenet/google groups comes close, but nobody uses them - perhaps > because there's no (effective) 'app for that', and there has to be an active > process of logging in. (Email alerts end up in... email). > > In brief - I think it's the medium not the message. The whole Internet needs > a new medium that encourages long-form discourse and thereby deep community. > That was email, but now it isn't email. I don't know what is now. > > Karim > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:34, John Preston wrote: > Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) > > I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, I've > grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more conservative > or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying to develop as > an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting critically on the > net and its constituent parts. I don't post in to every thread because a lot > of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, but I appreciate > reading: most of the contributions on this list are really insightful. > > The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to me, > I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If nettime > does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) > > John > > On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: > > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. > That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may > variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've > become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less > what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even > meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or > that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. > > Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the > last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, > the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, > media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its > terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. > Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus > model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have > gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 > years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that > attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and > not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried > under torrents of authority and theory. > > So, what can we do? > > In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, > inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had > limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping > along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an > environment so heavily defi
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Just forwarding this up. Original Message From: Karim Brohi Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST To: John Preston Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion groups on the Interwebs now. I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure intellectual pursuit. But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are too brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". Blog posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a specific individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same precedence as the original post. The post 'belongs' to the originator, not to the community. Maybe usenet/google groups comes close, but nobody uses them - perhaps because there's no (effective) 'app for that', and there has to be an active process of logging in. (Email alerts end up in... email). In brief - I think it's the medium not the message. The whole Internet needs a new medium that encourages long-form discourse and thereby deep community. That was email, but now it isn't email. I don't know what is now. Karim On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:34, John Preston wrote: > Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) > > I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, > I've grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more > conservative or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying > to develop as an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting > critically on the net and its constituent parts. I don't post in to every > thread because a lot of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, > but I appreciate reading: most of the contributions on this list are really > insightful. > > The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to > me, I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If > nettime does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) > > John > > On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: >> >> Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? >> >> It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed >> interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that >> aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that >> social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of >> platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, >> so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. >> That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may >> variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've >> become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less >> what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even >> meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or >> that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. >> >> Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the >> last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, >> the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, >> media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its >> terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. >> Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus >> model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have >> gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 >> years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that >> attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and >> not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried >> under torrents of authority and theory. >> >> So, what can we do? >> >> In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, >> inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had >> limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping >> along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an >> environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that >> shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be >> best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't >> meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the >> list's increasingly parochial status. >> >> Now, we have a simple proposal
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Ted and Felix, firstly let me say that it's nice to read your email concerning the list. I guess lots of us lurkers think we are not eloquent enough to get into discussions. Perhaps some of us are not used to virtual exchange, or just cant bother to take sides that are so uniform. It might happen that we are killing the list if we don't let hyper active ones to act. At the end, lurkers are here to learn from drama of leftright hyper zigzag. Personally, I like some posts that some others don't and would hate to miss them. My daily amount of Morlock and Morlock-haters is something I love to hate. I would miss it. If that is what nettime is, so what? This said, I fully expect that other lurkers write and hopefully there is new wind in nettime sails, so am fully supporting your initiative. Kruno On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 16:42 nettime mod squad wrote: > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. > That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may > variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've > become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less > what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even > meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or > that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. > > Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the > last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, > the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, > media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its > terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. > Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus > model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have > gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 > years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that > attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and > not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried > under torrents of authority and theory. > > So, what can we do? > > In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, > inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had > limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping > along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an > environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that > shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be > best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't > meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the > list's increasingly parochial status. > > Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. > > It goes like this: > > If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 > or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take > a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 > subscribers. > > If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like > your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit > with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. > > Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else > might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, > perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade > into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list > composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for > nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For > now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good > manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. > > > -- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) > > # 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: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 16:42 nettime mod squad wrote: > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Thank you, Tomasz, for chiming in. Your definitions are interesting. But if we take them as a starting point, I find myself still struggling to understand Frank's intended put-down, as well as his complaint. This list serves no real purpose beyond a kind of digital entertainment at a virtual social gathering. I'm not dismissing it's value in that context, but as a group (however loosely constructed) we are not self-consciously engaged in the active process of "changing" anything except our own minds through dialogue. (Or not changing them, as is likely often the case.) So, Frank, if that definition of bourgeois suits you, and if you agree with Tomasz's framing on the connection to free speech, then why are you here? For those of us who do live in places where speech can create trouble--and no doubt many of us do, and more of us may yet soon--then it would seem a gratuitous swipe at the speech they post here to dismiss it that way -- and to suggest that the moderators are ill-equipped to manage it or understand it in that context. As for my "feeding" habits, indeed, quite right. If anything my media intake is polymorphously perverse. Sascha On 6/7/19 3:07 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 01:18:23PM -0400, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote: I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously! WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in nature? For me, "bourgeois" is equivalent to "middle class", whatever this one means. In parts of the world where "bourgeois" constitutes a dictating majority, "free speech" is, IMHO, equivalent to casual speech and is a way to entertain during social gatherings. In other places, this is a way to put oneself in a troublesome situation (with degree of troublesome varying from ostracism to execution). [...] As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about that except go back to my list filtering and lurking. To avoid ideological monoculture, per analogy to avoiding eating monoculture, feed yourself from different sources. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, I've grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more conservative or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying to develop as an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting critically on the net and its constituent parts. I don't post in to every thread because a lot of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, but I appreciate reading: most of the contributions on this list are really insightful. The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to me, I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If nettime does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) John On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: >Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > >It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed >interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that >aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that >social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of >platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, >so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. >That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may >variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've >become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less >what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even >meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or >that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. > >Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the >last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, >the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, >media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its >terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. >Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus >model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have >gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 >years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that >attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and >not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried >under torrents of authority and theory. > >So, what can we do? > >In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, >inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had >limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping >along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an >environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that >shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be >best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't >meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the >list's increasingly parochial status. > >Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. > >It goes like this: > >If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 >or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take >a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 >subscribers. > >If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like >your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit >with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. > >Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else >might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, >perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade >into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list >composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for >nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For >now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good >manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. > > >-- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) > ># 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: # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 01:18:23PM -0400, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote: > I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously! > > WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free > speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in > nature? For me, "bourgeois" is equivalent to "middle class", whatever this one means. In parts of the world where "bourgeois" constitutes a dictating majority, "free speech" is, IMHO, equivalent to casual speech and is a way to entertain during social gatherings. In other places, this is a way to put oneself in a troublesome situation (with degree of troublesome varying from ostracism to execution). [...] > As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about > that except go back to my list filtering and lurking. To avoid ideological monoculture, per analogy to avoiding eating monoculture, feed yourself from different sources. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Low-poster, relative newcomer, appreciator of what nettime allows, confesses hazards of doctrinaire free speech since 1992: 1. Got kicked off several fora for annoying, angering, pissing off moderators. 2. Got kicked off Twitter for violating ToS, fingered family members of Trump jackass. 3. Got booted as moderator for allowing unfettered postings, "too immoderate." 4. Got rejected from several journalist-related fora for not being worthy, no commercial cred. 5. Got accused often of "going too far" with publications and opinions, violated official secrecy. 6. Got slew of mail-list postings rejected as being not appropriate, not list-flattering. 7. Operate unfettered mail list with about 50 subscribers, one of which posts at length. 8. A list moderater committed assisted suicide beggng me to approve, which I refused, condemned. List now unmoderated, but almost dormant. 9. Have always been opposed to moderation's censorship, redaction, privileging, lollygagging, career-building, intolerance, buttering-up, on and on, understanding those attributes are given for language, intelligence, education, esteem, pride, ego, herding, chastising, excluding, prejudice, shitting on. 10. Online has bred innumerable pestilential moderators, a very few exceptions, nearly all psychotic, god keep them from coercive control of their families, coleagues and subscribers. 11. Here's a UK appeals court quashing murder rap of a woman who hammered her husband to death for "coercive control:" https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/challen-approved.pdf 12. Lurking is much superior to posting, leaking, confessing (mea culpa). 13. Silence is free-est speech. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously! WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in nature? As the moderators have heard me say before, my two issues with this list remain that it is (a) too much a monoculture of ideas and (b) relies too heavily on jargon. Jargon that impedes comprehension, while at the same time softly slandering those "we" (used loosely) dislike (c.f., "bourgeois"; also the use of "neoliberal" in the initial post). Solzhenitsyn (are we allowed to reference him, or is he too much of a conservative to be taken seriously here?) wrote, in his stellar book "In The First Circle," about the concept of the Language of Maximum Clarity. We should strive for this (and it's certainly the opposite of "bourgeois"). As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about that except go back to my list filtering and lurking. Sascha On 6/7/19 12:08 PM, frank tigrero wrote: OK, I'll bite, as someone who has posted much less than others, but been a member forever. This new policy as is as shallow and milquetoast as YouTube's reluctance to ban actual nazis, misogynists and white supremacists from its platform and all the subsequent mess that has been roiling social media over the last week. Now, there aren't too many outright types of these people on nettime (a few, like Morlock and others) but this consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless "free speech" and a libertarian fetish for nonintervention is really galling, especially on a list that strives hard to understand the social and political and ideological underpinnings of what is ostensibly neutral (eg technology). I urge you to actually start moderating again. Frank. - Original message - From: "nettime mod squad - nett...@kein.org" To: nettim...@kein.org Subject: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Date: Friday, June 07, 2019 10:41 AM Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried under torrents of authority and theory. So, what can we do? In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the list's increasingly parochial status. Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. It goes like this: If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 subscribers. If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list composed *entirely
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
OK, I'll bite, as someone who has posted much less than others, but been a member forever. This new policy as is as shallow and milquetoast as YouTube's reluctance to ban actual nazis, misogynists and white supremacists from its platform and all the subsequent mess that has been roiling social media over the last week. Now, there aren't too many outright types of these people on nettime (a few, like Morlock and others) but this consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless "free speech" and a libertarian fetish for nonintervention is really galling, especially on a list that strives hard to understand the social and political and ideological underpinnings of what is ostensibly neutral (eg technology). I urge you to actually start moderating again. Frank. - Original message - From: "nettime mod squad - nett...@kein.org" To: nettim...@kein.org Subject: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Date: Friday, June 07, 2019 10:41 AM Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried under torrents of authority and theory. So, what can we do? In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the list's increasingly parochial status. Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. It goes like this: If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 subscribers. If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. -- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) # 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: # 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:
Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried under torrents of authority and theory. So, what can we do? In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the list's increasingly parochial status. Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. It goes like this: If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 subscribers. If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. -- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) # 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:
