Re: The System Development Corporation

It was uninformed :) but I definitely think that the infrastructure is the message. I don't doubt that a whole universe of ideas and battles can exist on the top of any given 'infrastructure'. The hard question (or even hard problem) is what matters? Where is the line drawn between the

Re: Nationalising big data

[Sharing a message from the individual that could not post to nettime-l, and my response to it] I think that fetishizing Big Data is very similar to fetishizing Blockchain. Big Data is a consequence, and putting lipstick on symptoms doesn't get one too far. The underlying issue (or

Re: Nationalising big data

Lord Zuckerberg and his minions and serfs in San Francisco would be pleased. Thank you for posting. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:17 PM Allan Siegel wrote: > Big data for the people >

Nationalising big data

Big data for the people: it's time to take it back from our tech overlords Ben Tarnoff in the Guardian "A small number of companies have become extraordinarily rich by harvesting our data. But that wealth belongs to the many” This is not as far-fetched as it sounds; a very basic idea with some

Re: The System Development Corporation

On 13/03/18 23:26, Morlock Elloi wrote: >> What do you mean by "confronting on an infrastructure level" and >> "liberating the infrastructure"? Sure, one thing is to understand the > > 1. Requiring equal access to switches and fiber. Like cities (most so > far) cannot have private streets, and

Re: The System Development Corporation

I imagine that Morlock’s original pithy statement of comparing activism to "grafitti on tanks” was an informed re-mix of the old Mcluhan aphorism: "the content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb” The origin might