Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:

>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that this 
was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as 
ascribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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:

Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:

>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that this 
was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as 
ascribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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:

Reflections on Florian Cramer & Angela Nagle, discussion

2018-03-06 Thread Kristoffer Gansing
David Garcia wrote:
>  A questioner towards the end of the discussion asked if Cramer and Nagle 
> could talk more about affect and affective politics.. more about the 
> emergence of movements and how sub-cultural energies today mobilised. Which 
> the questioner added is  ?also a question of power that is able to legitimise 
> these subcultural sentiments in ways that enable them to enter into the 
> political mainstream.. I?d like you to address the strategies, sentiments 
> within subcultural politics. It was a very good point but sadly it arose to 
> close to the end.. Perhaps we can take up this challenge here?

Thanks to David for taking the time to transcribe and comment on this dense 
discussion. Together with Daphne Dragona, I was responsible for organising this 
and felt that the atmosphere during the event was one of great attention and 
sense of urgency in terms of the audience wanting to have more of a say. Due to 
time constraints and two very talkative speakers, this didn't happen as much as 
it should have but it's nice to see the discussion continuing here. Since I was 
the one asking the question David mentions at the end, I can't but to help to 
step in and elaborate on this further. While I agree that one should not 
ascribe intrinsically progressive values to subcultures, I think it is 
important to situate the rise of the academic study and idealisation of 
subcultures in a historical context. Adorno and Horkheimer in all glory but 
what the British culture studies approach did was to take pop culture seriously 
as a thrust against the idealisation of high culture. One might say that th
 is was snobbish academic appropriation of popular and working class cultural 
movements - but today the impact of this can also be seen in how academia has 
become more accessible to many, where being in a subculture and researching it 
at the same time might even be a viable option.
Also this question of being in a subculture needs to be better addressed as I 
felt that Florian and Angela were in their critique of the cultural studies 
take on subcultures, actually themselves committing the mistake of taking 
subcultures too literally, while in fact the Birmingham school and co. would 
not essentialize subcultures to the degree that I felt was being done here. As 
if a subculture does exist in almost a static way, easily recognized by its 
symbolic language and styles, rather than something that is always transitory 
and, especially in the digital age, can be plugged in and out to at will. This 
is for me where the affective aspect come in, as I believe there are much more 
subcultural sentiments being circulated today without people behind them 
assuming a 1:1 identity with them. But this doesn't make them harmless of 
course, and actually creates a public sphere even more prone to manipulation 
through those who can indeed legitimise certain views over others as well as a
 scribing power to a form of quantified affect, where opinions with more 
followers, more data etc increasingly looks like valid knowledge. To just start 
addressing some of the "challenge" that David mentioned...

best,
Kristoffer

PS. David ends saying that this discussion is not posted prominently on the 
transmediale website: in fact it is not more or less prominently posted than 
any other event of the recent festival since we didn't yet publish anything on 
specific events or even yet publish the videos. so for now, the audio 
documentation is there in a database structure like all the other events.




#  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: Oliver Leistert: "Blockcian as a Modulator of Existence"

2018-03-06 Thread Magnus Boman
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 7:59 PM Morlock Elloi  wrote:

> In "Borat", there was a scene where a guy wanted to make sure that the
> car he is interested in is a "*ussy magnet".
>
> Blockchain is * magnet, in the sense that it attracts everything,
> especially *topian discourses. The way out (if one indeed is looking for
> a way out,) is to look at the boring details, and those have been
> discussed on this list ad nauseam.
>
> This is not to say that being just a magnet it does not influence the
> world. But this influence needs to be dissected under memetics-like
> optic, not technical one. On the technical side, there is little
> relevant, if anything.
>
> (ps. '*' in regular expressions matches anything, including nothing)
>

No, it does not match nothing (a set that contains nothing has cardinality
0) but the empty string (cardinality 1), this is Kleene's base case for the
primitive recursion.
Leistert displays a recursion-theoretic flaw too, when he says that

>The Ethereum network, dubbed to be the first “world computer” by its
inceptor Vitalik Buterin in late 2013, was the first manifestation of a
technology that enabled to combine the time-stamping regime of secured
hashes with a Turing-complete programming language on a distributed
computing platformiv


The language is in fact only Turing-complete modulo gas, admitted inbetween
the lines of reference iv, which has led to all sorts of pragmatic
challenges to the owners of Ethereum. Including people like myself
suggesting that verification be done outside the blockchain. Here's an
analogy:

When the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) project was launched, a crank came
with the computer in case you ran out of 'gas.' I asked jokingly if you
could install Vista on the OLPC, and one of the founders replied "We tried,
but the little crank melted." Ethereum and all other platforms are still
looking for a platinum crank and until they find it, Turing-completeness
means nothing. (Yes, nothing.)
M.
#  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:

PS: Addie Wagenknecht: How Claire Evans Is Writing Women Back Into The Internet (Forbes Mag)

2018-03-06 Thread Patrice Riemens


I forgot to credit the original 'text filterer': Barbara Strebel (who 
else? ;-)

Credit where credit is due!
#  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:


Addie Wagenknecht: How Claire Evans Is Writing Women Back Into The Internet (Forbes Mag)

2018-03-06 Thread Patrice Riemens

Original to:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/addiewagenknecht/2018/03/05/how-claire-evans-is-writing-women-back-into-the-internet/


How Claire Evans Is Writing Women Back Into The Internet


Claire L. Evans is the author of the new book: Broad Band The Untold 
Story of the Women Who Made the Internet. Claire recently caught up with 
me to discuss Broad Band using email, Skype dates and various document 
sharing platforms while across the world from each other, with five time 
zones in between. Her book comes out at a time when #metoo and net 
neutrality are major topics in the internet conscious and women's roles 
are being redefined and rewritten.





Can you tell me about your new book Broad Band? How did it change your 
point of view on how history is documented and how we should approach 
the narrative of the future differently?


The easy thing is to say that Broad Band is a feminist history of the 
Internet. That’s what I’ve been telling people. Maybe it’s more accurate 
to say that it’s a history of the Internet told through women’s stories: 
boots-on-the-ground accounts of where the women were, how they were 
feeling and working, at specific, formative moments in Internet history. 
It emphasizes users and those who design for use, while many popular 
tech histories tend to zero in on the box. I’ve always been fascinated 
with what happens after hardware hits the market; it’s what we do with 
it that counts.


What inspired you to write this book specifically?

I see it as the confluence of a few factors. I cut my teeth as a writer 
on message boards on the early Web, and published volumes online in the 
height of the blog era; for me, writing has rarely if ever been separate 
from online writing, but I had reached a point, having grown up online, 
of disconnect with the medium. I think we’re all grappling with the ways 
in which the Internet is changing faster than we can register. As a kind 
of balm, I started writing “secret history” pieces for Motherboard about 
female-identified Internet arcana: cyberfeminist artists, lost CD-ROM 
games. At a certain point it just felt like an inevitability to take the 
full plunge.


You met many of these women in person, was there a commonality among the 
early pioneers of the internet in terms of how they got into the tech 
sector, their personalities or upbringing that manifested their 
trajectories?


My process for identifying subjects for this book was to first identify 
the major sea changes—the birth of programming, the earliest attempts to 
network computers—and then to play detective, poking around, looking for 
women’s names. What I found, again and again, was that the women tended 
to concentrate at the beginnings of things, in those moments where the 
lack of precedent a new technology affords allowed them to carve their 
own place, rather than be beholden to institutional requirements or the 
existing standards of a field. Another way of saying this is that many 
of the women profiled in the book did some of their best work while 
nobody was looking—for their own reasons, to serve their own 
communities, or for the sheer love of the technology.


What does your creative process look like, do you have any rituals or 
favorite things to do before you start?


Like a lot of writers, I imagine, there’s a lot of hand-wringing and 
procrastinating and staring hopelessly at an empty text document. I try 
to read something before I start working, just to remind myself what’s 
possible. I write best in the morning; I write better if I’ve meditated. 
A moderate amount of sativa can help in a pinch. When I get burned out, 
I switch my working method; I’ll go on a long drive and dictate my 
thoughts into my phone, or pivot to writing longhand.


How as the shift in cultural and social climate since the election 
affected your work?


I started writing Broad Band before the election. There are some 
subjects in the book that I spoke to before, during, and afterwards, and 
although the tone of our conversations definitely evolved over that 
time, I tried to stay the course. Ultimately what I tried to create with 
this book is a sacred place: it centers women’s experiences, it 
highlights the more subtle, beautiful contributions made by people at 
the margins and at the protean beginnings of these important 
technologies. I didn’t want to let in the scrum. I wanted us to have 
something nice that wasn’t necessarily in a position of retreat, 
resistance, or reaction to external factors. That’s not to say I don’t 
get into the darkness at all—just that my priority was to hold up the 
light.


Do you have any key collaborators and people who have shaped your 
personal aesthetic?


My partner, Jona Bechtolt, is a huge part of my ability to get anything 
done. He and I have been collaborating for over ten years; we play 
together in a band, YACHT, and we founded an app together, 5 Every Day. 
He’s very fastidious and design-oriented, I lean towards big-picture