Just came across this - https://shows.acast.com/jacobin-radio/episodes/dig-its-still-capitalism-w-evgeny-morozov
On Fri 8 Jul 2022, 03:08 Molly Hankwitz, <mollyhankw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, Boris, and Brian, > Thank you for all of your writings and reviews. Boris, those descriptions > of how corporations will fill the gap of the state by providing travel > money for women employees seeking abortions...are chillingly correct, and > scary and partly what I do really like about Safiya Noble's position (her > name has been misspelled by me, apologies - Noble, not Nobel - forgive me > for being obsessed, but imho she is moved to write because she is deeply > concerned with the loss of public assets to the private sector...this all > seems to be one ball of wax... > > womens' rights being subsumed under employee contracts of individual > corporations and the rights of corporations to acquire (say in higher ed) > public assets as their own...this further eroding the public sphere(s)... > > I got around to reading the Morozov not the Strom piece > > There are two conditions of the present which resonate with me in these > discussions of capital accumulation, yet which aren't about customary > conditions of factory labor, or other examples of capitalist economies > because they are unusual circumstances...they are such flagrant examples of > exploitation that they stand out. > > Situation 1: Bezos making 49 billion dollars of income during the 2 years > of massive humanitarian loss and pain due to COVID. Okay, so he happens to > own a global delivery business, which did well during this time...but can't > such individual, highly predatory capitalism be regulated, unlawful or > fined heavily as a blight? Should anyone be able - without some kind of > payback - to exploit humanity so flagrantly without some kind of fine or > sanction? > > Example 2. Ukraine war...oil and gas prices sky high at the expense of > 100s of 1,000s of refugees, loss of life, loss of environment, loss of > architecture, loss of cultural identity...should oil companies be able to > reap profit while a war persists? maybe we need a global court to judge > such huge profits at humanity's expense? > > These profits so frequently allowed to move forward without consequence or > questioning in the fiction of an objective stance - > > so when Mozorov and Noble both analyze how capable big tech (Google) is of > amplifying financial gain and the objectification of the vulnerable > ...maybe these giant shifts in scale can be a start to understanding what > capital is doing. (Thanks Brian and Boris and Felix for trying). I think > about screens, screen time, the small screen of our smartphones as pieces > of peasant turf in the fragmented feudal fiefdom, once part of a pastoral > commons, more public and less exploitable, and now mined and marred by > proximity to the minute by minute data-extraction of cyber-markets. I guess > that might go to digital labor, but much is so unconscious that maybe > better to stay on the giant global events and who is profiting? > > molly > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:52 PM Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> First, Strom focuses on something that has been central to this list >> forever, namely tech. He does so in response to some really simplifying and >> even spurious talk about technofeudalism (by Varoufakis and others), but >> also, in response to the rather dogmatic and reductive Marxism displayed by >> Morozov himself, who btw has been the best net critic publishing in the >> mainstream press. That last detail suggests that Morozov's dogmatism might >> be a significant symptom of a larger failure to grasp the present, and for >> that reason the debate in the New Left Review becomes quite revealing (plus >> I actually recommend the Morozov article on its own merits as well, there's >> a lot of interesting stuff in there about various strands of Marxism). >> Problem is, Morozov does not seem able to grasp his main object of >> interest, which is the internet and networked societies, with the >> conceptual tools he is trying to use. He returns to the Book I of Capital >> paradigm, where an industrial firm makes a widget and competes with other >> industrial firms to sell it on the market. This is the simplified schema of >> typical dogmatic Marxism, which ought to have disappeared when the >> Grundrisse and the notes for the unfinished books of Capital were published >> in the Sixties and Seventies. But it didn't disappear and here's Morozov >> defaulting to it! Strom, on the contrary, says that under cybernetic >> capitalism, the firm acts to shape all the factors that constitute the >> market, namely distribution, sales, financing, government regulation and >> security, as well as the wage regime that sustains worker/consumers and, >> even more crucially, the cultural environment that stimulates and channels >> consumer desire. That kind of shaping was done throughout the twentieth >> century - just consider the development of credit, social wages, and >> advertising in the early mass-manufacturing period - but cybernetic >> machines and cybernetic theory allowed it to be done with incomparable >> scope and intensity, through the fiber-optic cabling of the world in the >> 1990s, the consolidation of networked just-in-time production and >> distribution in the same period, and then the development of social media >> and platform capitalism in the 2000s. I think all the valuable >> contributions to the understanding of neoliberalism take this cybernetic >> aspect on board, although sometimes without naming it as such. If you look >> at David Harvey, Bob Jessop, Manuel Castells, Hardt & Negri, and dozens of >> others, they all discuss how capitalism, and therefore, individual >> capitalist firms and states, act to deliberately shape their operating >> environment. That's the core cybernetic idea: control is exercised through >> the design of the overall factors that govern social interaction, which >> means systemic factors, such as communication, logistics, the monetary >> system, etc. It's an idea that Hayek understood very well, by the way, and >> it's worth noting that Hayek became a kind of cybernetics aficionado in the >> Sixties. Anyway these particular capacities of control gave rise to a >> recognizably distinct phase of capitalism, usually called neoliberalism but >> here called cybernetic capitalism in order to insist on the importance of >> those control functions. So, I may not have been clear enough in my post, >> but I was trying to say that this cybernetic aspect is real, in fact it is >> a core component of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. My question is, why >> is the cybernetic logic of neoliberal capitalism now being forgotten after >> such important work was done, and after major struggles were carried on in >> the 1990s and 2000s in clear cognizance of that cybernetic logic? We talked >> about it on nettime endlessly for over twenty years, many of us engaged in >> activism on these issues, and people like Felix Stalder, myself and dozens >> of others published quite a bit about it, all in the shadow of the major >> thinkers that I've partially listed (there should be probably fifty more >> names in that list), and also with a lot of help from science and >> technology studies. Yet Morozov's text seems like a symptom of a general >> and ongoing theoretical regression with regard to the analysis of >> capitalism. I'm mystified by the apparent decline of social theory at this >> moment in time. Strom is not the be all and end all of social theory, >> certainly not in one brief article, but at least he clearly names and >> analyses cybernetic capitalism as it is actually practiced by the big tech >> firms. And he does so in such a way that you can use his work to fill in >> all those huge gaps that are inevitable when we're just referring to one >> short article. >> >> The second thing is that many of the components that came together to >> form the distinctive phase of neoliberalism are now in open crisis, that >> is, they are breaking down under the weight of their own contradictions. >> Neoliberalism has been characterized by the free global movement of money >> capital, factors of production and finished goods, and by the race to the >> bottom in labor markets that has made labor freely exploitable, through >> deregulation, outsourcing and a widespread reliance on immigrant labor with >> reduced rights. But now the international monetary system has become >> unreliable and is splintering, war and the rivalry between major capitalist >> blocs is seriously disrupting the ability to produce anywhere capital sees >> a comparative advantage, and the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of >> labor is causing social turmoil, on the left in the form of struggles by >> racialized minorities and precarious workers (often one and the same), and >> even more on the anti-immigration right where many people have also been >> seriously affected by capital flight and abandonment (I live in the US >> Midwest where this condition of abandonment is at its most extreme). >> Simultaneously to all this, damn, the climate, and more broadly, the >> biogeochemical cycles that sustain earthly life, are being stressed to the >> point of collapse, which is causing enormous tension, both on the left >> where we are aware and very afraid of these impending ecological >> catastrophes, and on the right where they are terrified of the admittedly >> major and highly disruptive changes to the industrial system that are being >> proposed (like, cancel the oil, steel and cement industries, cancel >> industrial agriculture - this kind of talk makes people very very nervous). >> All this tension and open conflict suggests that the distinctive phase of >> neoliberalism will now go through a period of turmoil, comparable at least >> to the turmoil of the Seventies, and more likely I'm afraid, to that of the >> late Thirties and early Forties. Neoliberalism is not over and you're >> right, it is useless to simply proclaim that it's over when nothing >> recognizable has yet replaced it. However its core axioms are threatened >> and it appears almost certain that many of these axioms will now evolve, >> almost surely in a capitalist way I'm sad to say. After all, neoliberalism >> itself is just a reorganization of two hundred years of capitalism, and >> every time you check your phone in the taxi when leaving the train station >> or the airport, you are reiterating major phases of technological and >> organizational development that still leave their mark on everyday life. >> Like the train and the automobile, the computational machines of >> neoliberalism and the cybernetic logic that governs them will continue to >> be important in whatever new figure of capitalism arises from the present >> turmoil. But their importance will change, just as the importance of trains >> has changed, and as the importance of the automobile is about to change >> through electrification. Can we be aware of these changes as they happen? >> Can we grasp an overall pattern of change as it emerges? And crucially, can >> we follow how the big tech firms will evolve, and what kinds of new roles >> they will take on as the crisis of neoliberalism gets deeper? >> >> Finally, I think what Molly Hankwitz is trying to point to is that what >> we do now, and even, how we interpret the deeds and misdeeds of Silicon >> Valley, could become crucial to the ways that tech evolves, and capitalism >> along with it. You know, in the US, neoliberalism largely "solved" its race >> problems by abandoning Black workers, either through automation, or >> outsourcing, or by drawing on immigrant labor. The resultant conditions of >> abandonment plus onslaught from the increasingly nationalist and racist >> right have provoked a major critique of the whole contemporary capitalist >> system AND its colonial roots. That critique has spread from Black people, >> who kicked it off, to Indigenous people, who significantly deepened it on >> the ecological level, and now to the whole progressive bloc and especially >> precarious youth, who are directly threatened by the breakdown of >> neoliberalism and its ecological consequences. How does such a critique >> affect tech, which is unlikely to just go away (dream on) but which is >> likely to undergo major changes over the next decade? That's a key >> question, and when I get some time I'll check out the book that Molly's >> talking about. I think she's making an important contribution there, but >> hey, it takes time to read a book so I have not done so yet. >> >> Anyway, we might agree more than you initially thought, or if not, maybe >> we can have a better discussion by making some of the assumptions more >> explicit. >> >> best, Brian >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:58 AM thresholdpeople < >> thresholdpeo...@protonmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Brian, thank you for sharing these articles, and everyone for the >>> conversation. Molly, Nobel's book seems interesting, thanks! I've got >>> some issues with Strom's article, and perhaps Nobel offers a clearer >>> picture. >>> >>> >>> First though, and respectfully, I think it is dangerous to declaring >>> neoliberalism dead, or dying. Or wishful thinking, at best. How many >>> catastrophes have we all experienced that resulted in such a >>> pronouncement? And now we are seemingly looking at only impending >>> catastrophes from nearly every direction, as we pass by others that have >>> already struck, and yet neoliberalism remains. And is it actually >>> weakening? I truly don't think so. Look at climate change: as >>> governments continue to provide "told you so"s to neoliberals as being >>> completely ineffective at being able to enact any substantive policies, the >>> market continues to both reinforce the power of the status quo, and provide >>> a new bubble for capital to flow in to: for-profit companies developing >>> products that claim to be the solution we all need. In the US, now in a >>> post Roe v Wade world, it's again certain companies stepping in to fill the >>> void left by government, offering to provide funding for travel for >>> reproductive care for their employees. The ascension of seemingly >>> anti-neoliberal leaders, like Trump and Bolsonaro, continue and bolster >>> this trend. Neoliberalism is shockingly, and unfortunately, >>> hyper-adaptable. >>> >>> I haven't read Morozov's essay yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit >>> on judging Strom's. >>> >>> I found Strom's take interesting for additional points of historical >>> analysis of our current situation, and I agree with his fundamental points >>> of needing to understand the levels of abstraction in play to understand >>> how exploitation occurs, how power operates and normalizes, that we're >>> not reverting to feudalism, and that capitalism is complicated. Is what he >>> describes actually different than neoliberalism though? >>> >>> Strom writes: >>> >>> Many aspects of this transformation are discussed under the rubric of >>> ‘neoliberalism’. No doubt the brutal drive to put profit über alles has had >>> devastating ramifications for society, subjectivity and the planet’s >>> ecology; yet the focus on production and exchange should not occlude other >>> aspects, such as communication, inquiry, organization and technology. >>> Neoliberal transformations are underpinned by cybernetic changes that laid >>> the foundations for a global market to operate, via instantaneous >>> communication and rationalized logistics. >>> >>> >>> Isn't his just a description of the technical infrastructure that makes >>> neoliberalism possible and thrive? What makes lean production, outsource, >>> subcontracting, causualization, etc possible? And as such, just capitalism >>> as we currently know it? >>> >>> I found the essay pretty scant on what this infrastructure (of >>> capitalism) means, or why it being like that enables what we have. There's >>> a lot of focus on the financialization it enables, but where are the >>> people? As an example, there was nothing on the fact that a lot of this >>> technology, eg AI/machine learning, is made possible and propelled by >>> ultra-precarious low wage labor, by those who are so far removed from maybe >>> any company, who can even claim them as employees? Or even the logic of >>> using this same technology to source and hire the same laboring people that >>> continue to do this work. This work ultimately contributes up toward these >>> immense valuations and speculations in these companies. Maybe the >>> exploitation is taken for granted, and thus left out, but it's almost like >>> the infrastructure he describes is shown to be self-sustaining, and >>> self-fulfilling. This is problematic I think. >>> >>> I think the closest he gets is that *I* or *you* - this individualized >>> notion - will be strip-mined of our precious data based on the technology >>> we have around us. This is an important consideration, no doubt, but seems >>> to be missing the point? >>> >>> I feel like I'm missing something here. >>> >>> >>> Last year I read Wendy Hui Kyong Chun's book called *Programmed >>> Visions: Software and Memory*. It was published over 10 years ago, but >>> I believe it has a lot in the way of extending and deepening Strom's core >>> point, but also taking it to task where it's lacking. It focuses on the >>> parallels and paradigms in both computing technology and neoliberal >>> governance. She wrote about how code is an abstraction and metaphor, and >>> in computing as it stands now, it is a metaphor of a metaphor. The code >>> one writes no longer represents what happens when one runs it. In a sense, >>> the sheer complexity of the system is beyond one's the capabilities of >>> being able to grasp it in total. She traces it back to biology, Eugenics, >>> chemistry, the military industrial complex, etc. And offers a very good >>> history for how the computing industry came to be, going into gender >>> dynamics. She saw potentials for intervention within this logic. Her book >>> was >>> >>> And maybe this is tangential, but I would also recommend this talk by >>> Nancy Fraser - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk2VJAW_jHw. It's focus >>> isn't on technological infrastructure, but rather that capitalism requires >>> non-capitalist spheres to sustain itself. She discusses how capitalism can >>> only be fully understood at this intersection point and relation. She >>> describes these relations are highly problematic, contradictory, and areas >>> with crisis tendencies. Fraser highlights the ecological, social and >>> political as three such zones and their boundaries: economy and nature, >>> economy and society, and economy and polity. Importantly, I think, she >>> identifies these as points of social struggle, and sees the possibility for >>> coalition building across these three points as a way to fight capitalism. >>> >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- Original Message ------- >>> On Wednesday, July 6th, 2022 at 1:25 PM, Molly Hankwitz < >>> mollyhankw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Brian et al, >>> >>> What a great and hopeful last paragraoh, Brian. Perhais, as you say, now >>> that neoliberalism is attacking itself, there will be change…can be a more >>> productive critique if the beast than hipster slants. >>> >>> I will mention that Nobel’s book, which I’ve read very closely, not only >>> analyzes the regimes behind search, but provides ideas; is a clarion call >>> for what is needed to resurrect a 90s era value in public information - >>> transparency, literacy, and accessibility to a wide range of sources rather >>> than the singularity of google’s authority - and this from a black >>> information scholar who is already versed in how information skews history. >>> >>> Thank you…lots more to read. >>> >>> Molly >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The thing to conclude from this thread is that capitalism is a beast. >>> You hope it's gonna change, and then it just adds new fangs. We all watched >>> this happen despite (or even to some extent, because of) Nineties-era hopes >>> that decentralized networks would translate into a distributed productive >>> basis for a new society. Dyne.org took this hope on board in the most >>> pragmatic way possible, and Jaromil, your conclusions after two decades of >>> sustained effort are definitely heard on this end. It's sad to be the one >>> who gives them a theoretical framework, but this is where resistance comes >>> from, right? I don't think there's any way to share struggles, to socialize >>> resistance, without updating the critical analysis of power. And we're >>> overdue for a reboot on that account. >>> >>> Felix, your pamphlet does something fundamental in that regard, which is >>> basically to ask, is the mining in data-mining the same as the mining in >>> South America? Or in other words, has the raw expropriation of colonialism >>> ever been separable from the rule-governed exploitation of factory labor? >>> The answer that has emerged everywhere, and especially in the Americas, is >>> no, the beast of capitalism has those two heads. The pamphlet is >>> particularly interesting because it tries to grasp them together, and to >>> see how they have together caused the Great Acceleration of climate change, >>> rather than defaulting back to one or the other as the prime explanation. >>> To me it is certain that the Great Acceleration of the 1950s would have >>> never happened without the postwar spread of the cybernetic regime, which >>> includes not just computers but a vast organizational form, the corporate >>> state. It takes a willful ignorance not to see that this has always been a >>> neocolonial, extractive regime (the example of oil extraction, one of the >>> biggest consumers of CPU cycles, is there for all to see). Okay, that >>> ignorance was deliberately practiced by many of us for decades, out of >>> hope, as a kind of constructive wager - no regrets about it. But now is a >>> time of resistance, and it's really getting urgent to have more precise >>> observations and stronger theories about where the double-headed and >>> heavily fanged beast of capitalism is going. That's why I came out against >>> the idea of techno-feudalism, and all the reductive hipster concepts that >>> now just limit our understanding, with no political benefit in return. >>> >>> Since 2008 there has been huge uncertainty about how cybernetic >>> capitalism would evolve, because of insuperable contradictions within its >>> financial core. After Trump and Brexit, the just-in-time system of >>> globalization came equally into question. Now the Ukraine war, including >>> China's qualified support for Russia, has made it clear that this system of >>> production-distribution will not stand. We are headed for a major >>> restructuring, further influenced by the fearsome encroaching reality of >>> climate change. How is the existing system, the beast, cybernetic >>> capitalism, going to morph under these new conditions? >>> >>> For years on nettime we speculated about exactly that question, but each >>> crisis, from the dot-com bust onwards, was quelled by the injection of >>> central-bank money into the system. Now it seems that the free-money >>> strategy has reached its limits. All the world saw that China was able to >>> use direct state control of the economy to solve a major financial crisis >>> on a 2008 scale, centered in real estate and particularly around the >>> Evergreen corporation. Apparently they dealt with it, you don't hear any >>> more about it. This is definitely a clue. It is apparently possible to >>> combine cybernetic capitalism with a strong state. Whether or how that >>> combination might come into being in the so-called West is a real question. >>> >>> In any event I am certain that the thing we speculated about for so long >>> is now really happening. The neoliberal paradigm is being hit by all the >>> monsters that it has created - Russia, precarity, climate change - and at >>> the same time, AI is coming out of the box. A new production-distribution >>> system is both technically imaginable and widely desired. The next decade >>> will see, either generalized war and entropic breakdown, or a reformulation >>> of the exploitative/extractive combo. I reckon that option 2 is more >>> likely, although definitely with limited war, of the kind we're seeing now >>> or maybe worse. If you don't want to leave the right-wing ideologists in >>> charge of the question of a state-led, protective cybernetics, then now is >>> the time to give up the hipster concepts and restart the pragmatic analysis >>> of what is indeed a very ugly beast. How to grasp it as it emerges? >>> >>> courage to all, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:27 AM Jaromil <jaro...@dyne.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> dear Brian, Felix and nettime readers, >>>> >>>> coincidentally, let me share some recent news, small but relevant to >>>> complete the analysis: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Lennart-Poettering-Out-Red-Hat >>>> >>>> let me complete with what this magazine (historically pro-systemd and >>>> aggressively posed against all critics) is perhaps afraid to tell: the >>>> master of systemd now works for Micro$oft. >>>> https://twitter.com/jaromil/status/1544618996833583104 I hope you >>>> don't mind me per-using your quote Brian. >>>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2022, Brian Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>> > This is totally on point, Jaromil. The tech industry has always been >>>> able to think cybernetically - it has to, in order to handle interactive >>>> networks with millions of users - but what you're pointing out, in a very >>>> specific situation, is how it's now able to carry out integrated strategies >>>> affecting entire fields or "modes of practice." In your example, it means >>>> reshaping all the factors that condition the software development process, >>>> including institutional ones such as the literature on standards and the >>>> processes for their validation. >>>> > >>>> > On the global level both Google and Microsoft are notorious for >>>> transforming governance through the introduction of particular types of >>>> software and information-processing services that reshape the activity of >>>> corporate officials and bureaucrats, and in that way, affect entire >>>> societies. However I had never considered that Red Hat would be doing the >>>> same within social-democratic spheres where FOSS development is supported >>>> by public money. It's somewhat depressing news, because FOSS development >>>> for public use is really one of the few places where the social-steering >>>> capacities of Silicon Valley are challenged... I don't have the expertise >>>> to fully evaluate what you're saying (although I have read about Devuan and >>>> the systemd controversies!) - but anyway, yes, I think we are talking about >>>> exactly the same thing here. >>>> >>>> I love how the research and works by Florian Gottke remind us about the >>>> importance of topping statues, an act operating through the language of >>>> liturgy, and firmly preluding radical changes in governance. >>>> >>>> And so there is a symbolic event last year worth mentioning: the >>>> topping of RMS from his role as prophet: we wrote about it here >>>> https://medium.com/think-do-tank/open-letter-to-the-free-software-movement-7ddc7429b474 >>>> - an open letter written together with Christina Derazenski, a big loss as >>>> I believe she'd be able to describe much better than me what is happening >>>> and through the lenses of feminism. >>>> >>>> Today we have the not-so-symbolic event of Linux development being >>>> steered by Micro$oft, with all implications enounced in this thread. >>>> >>>> So now let me once again use nettime to mark an event in time - this >>>> list is the best literary blockchain around! :^D >>>> >>>> Today we witness the epilogue of what was the F/OSS movement with all >>>> its dreams of glory and democracy or do-ocracy or whatever fascinated our >>>> friend Biella so much when describing Debian. Today we observe what you >>>> mention as a "classic cybernetic takeover" vastly overlooked by academic >>>> literature about governance and free software. >>>> >>>> I am fascinated by all this, but somehow relieved there will be no more >>>> a global F/OSS movement, just pockets of resistance. >>>> >>>> Foucault, Deleuze, Caronia... they have seen all this already. >>>> >>>> And they were right: being and becoming marginal, feels good. >>>> >>>> Also some security experts were right from the beginning, about using >>>> OpenBSD. >>>> >>>> ciao >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Denis "Jaromil" Roio https://Dyne.org think &do tank >>>> Ph.D, CTO & co-founder software to empower communities >>>> ✉ Haparandadam 7-A1, 1013AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands >>>> 𝄞 crypto κρυπτο крипто क्रिप्टो 加密 التشفير הצפנה >>>> ⚷ 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10 >>>> >>>> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >>>> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >>>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >>>> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >>>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >>>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >>> >>> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >>> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >>> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >>> >>> >>> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
