... 0.0 <nettime> moderation rotation nettime's_rotating_moderators nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:29:39 -0500 / [5] / \ °°°°°° [3] °° °° \ °° -[2]- °° ° ° ° ° ° -[1]- ° ° ° | °° °° [?] °° °° | °°°°°° / [4] / ° ° ° ° ° ° ° \ ° ° ° ° [?] ° °X° ° \ °X° ° ° ° ° °X° ° ° ° /* please press arrow keys to rotate moderators */ [1] Scot McPhee <scot {AT} autonomous.org> [2] Sebastian Luetgert <sebastian {AT} rolux.org> [3] Geert Lovink <geert {AT} xs4all.nl> [4] Ted Byfield <tbyfield {AT} panix.com> [5] Felix Stalder <stalder {AT} fis.utoronto.ca> [?] moderators temporarily out of orbit [X] your messages [1] "Hi, I'm Scot Mcphee, one of your new nettime moderators. I'm the sysadm of Autonomous Organisation (autonomous.org), based in Sydney Australia. During the day I work as a computer professional type for the international capitalist futures industry. Oh yes, it gets worse. I have military training." [2] "Hi, I'm Sebastian Luetgert, another one of your new nettime moderators. I'm running ROLUX (http://www.rolux.org) and the <rolux> mailing list, both based in Berlin, Germany. I have some gifs of Debord, Deleuze, Foucault and Godard stored on my local hard disk drive and recently installed a copy of SimCity 3000." [3] "Hi, I'm Geert Lovink, an Amsterdam born and based media theorist and activist, member of Adilkno, co-founder of the nettime mailinglist, moderator of the dutch nettime-nl list and co-organizer of the Next Five Minutes conferences on tactical media. Lately I am involved in further developing the format of the so-called temporary media labs." [4] "Hi, I'm t byfield. I spend my time hammering away on writing, both my own and others'. My legal place of residence is in New York City, but I'm rarely seen there (or anywhere else)." [5] "Hi, I'm Felix Stalder. I'm a third generation nettime moderator. I'm usually in Toronto wrestling with objects. My hard disk contains two folders called 'misc'. I like ordering systems though I'm not very good at them." 1.0 <nettime> The majordomo panoply of other nettimes Bruce Sterling nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:38:04 -0600 Geert Lovink remarks: "The nettime project in my view has come to halt a long time ago and has transgressed into an ordinary majordomo mailinglist only model which is indeed free of cost." I don't want to trouble Geert with this conundrum, but if there is any OTHER "ordinary majordomo" list that concerns itself with the following utterly wack, bonkers, yet peculiarly relevant series of topics, man, I need-to-know about it. Okay? Clue me in pronto. I have not yet given Rhizome five dollars, but I think I may be willing TO PERSONALLY OFFER FIVE DOLLARS to each nettimer with a well-thought-out essay on why this is (a) bad (b) thievery or (c) simpleminded and impossible. The only caveat: in exchange your five dollars, you have to promise that, after writing it, you DON'T PUBLISH THAT COMPLAINT ON NETTIME, or, in fact anywhere else. If I accumulate enough of these, I am thinking a small but exquisite leatherbound collector's edition with tipped-in plates and a satin ribbon. bruces nettime-l Jan 03 by Thread Messages are listed by thread. The last update was on 23:00 GMT Sat Jan 25. There are 122 messages. [Date Index] [Other Lists] [Home] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *<nettime> Koerner: Why American teens don't want the new cell phones geert lovink *Re: <nettime> wireless commons digest [stalder, elloi] Brett Shand *Re: <nettime> Religious Sect Announces First Cloned Baby Paul Brown *<nettime> WiFiCo [weisman, elloi] nettime's_waterloo_monger *<nettime> 2003 20th Anniversary of cutover from ncp/ARPANET to TCP/IP Internet Ronda Hauben *<nettime> Scatter(ed) Dynamics (text): audio.culture.theory tim jaeger *<nettime> Colombia: Rebels Embrace New Technology Krystian Woznicki *<nettime> From Korean Central News Agency of DPRK Alan Sondheim *<nettime> M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws inAntimissile System David Mandl *<nettime> BytesForAll * 04012003 Frederick Noronha *<nettime> Mystery Man Revealed in Microsoft Xbox Hack Contest Rachel Greene *<nettime> The War of Time bc *<nettime> FUCK HIP HOP: A Eulogy to Hip Hop Paul D. Miller *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> FUCK HIP HOP: A Eulogy to Hip Hop McKenzie Wark *<nettime> Re: A Eulogy to Hip Hop Danny Butt *<nettime> Vietnam: Cyber-dissident jailed for 12 years (rsf) geert lovink *<nettime> Events [9x] Announcer *<nettime> unstable digest vol 28 Florian Cramer *<nettime> WiFiCo2 digest [elloi, albert] nettime's_ruminant *<nettime> Fwd: Bush II Never President, Historians Conclude Bruce Sterling *<nettime> hip hop eulogy digest [myers, eduardo] nettime_preacha *<nettime> hip hop eulogy digest ctd. [greene, miller] nettime *<nettime> Tehelka crushed by the power elite Bruce Sterling *<nettime> hop hip digest [fusco, williams, porculus, butt] nettime_mixmaster_discourse *<nettime> hip hop digest vol. 4 [sonar radar, eyescratch, mcgee] nettime *<nettime> Zapatista speeches, January 1st 2003 + 20,000 Zapatistas "take" San Cristobal,Jan 06 ricardo dominguez *<nettime> hip hop digest vol. 5 [Guderian, Wark] nettime's digestion *<nettime> hip hop digest vol. 6 [levesque, buhard] nettime *<nettime> zapatate speech, right now porculus *<nettime> the ABZ of the Copenhagen Free University matthew fuller *<nettime> Jo & Bruce: Community Radio in Afghanistan geert lovink *<nettime> Perry Anderson on the upcoming war Patrice Riemens *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> Perry Anderson on the upcoming war Sawad *<nettime> re: Bennu's piece Mendi Obadike *Re: <nettime> hip hop (in)digestion Are Flagan *<nettime> Fw: //surveillance// Many tools of Big Brother are up and running wade tillett *<nettime> fwd: [IRR] US DTV: the battle is joined t byfield *<nettime> sms(SMUT-system) use at WTO meeting - sydney dr.woooo *<nettime> hip-hop digest dr.woooo *<nettime> Bennu's piece & hip-hop digest Paul D. Miller *<nettime> Announcements [9x] Announcer *<nettime> Artificial Perception as Reality Check twsherma *<nettime> Critics Call Digital Activation Intrusive Jim Fleming *<nettime> Events [11x] Announcer *<nettime> the strange mess of paul's global hip-hop eulogy digest [butt, townsend, mcgee] nettime's_gang *<nettime> Battered Summit-Hoppers Cordially Overlooked Bruce Sterling *<nettime> Woah, that's some culture-jam Bruce Sterling *<nettime> Tactical Media & Conflicting Diagrams (draft chapter) Alexander Galloway *<nettime> unstable digest vol 29 Florian Cramer *Re: <nettime> Koerner: Why American teens don't want the new cellphones Francis Hwang *<nettime> ur-europanto redivivus: FT on clinton t byfield *<nettime> the strange mess of paul's global hip-hop eulogy digest [butt, townsend, mcgee] Paul D. Miller *<nettime> Institutionalization of computer protocols (draft chapter) Alexander Galloway *<nettime> ITU To Propose Intl Cyberspace Treaty at WSIS (fwd) Heiko Recktenwald *<nettime> united we sms, divided we email digest [sgp, campion] nettime's_big_thumb *<nettime> EN) Updates for anti-WTO summit protest in Cancun dr.woooo *<nettime> Publications [11x] Announcer *<nettime> ominous rumbling about global net regulations t byfield *<nettime> Oleg Kireev: Review of Hakim Bey-"Chaos and anarchy" in Russian geert lovink *<nettime> Re: One Day Left m e t a *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> Re: One Day Left Are Flagan *<nettime> Re: One Day Left nettime's suv driver *<nettime> FW: [CSL]: Jeremy Rifkin: Dazzled by the science David Wood *<nettime> smsed we divide digest [recktenwald, easy listener] nettime's_free_gateway *<nettime> your friendly neighborhood assassin bc *Re: <nettime> Institutionalization of computer protocols (draftchapter) Philip Galanter *<nettime> Interview with Slavoj Zizek (published in Haaretz) geert lovink *<nettime> Interview with Prema Murthy on 'Mythic Hybrid' Diane Ludin *<nettime> Bat People on the Moon Still Seem Happy robert m. tynes *<nettime> FW: Wildlife killed by conventional farming 'flourishes in GM fields' wade tillett *<nettime> blinded by science digest [galanter, geer] nettime's_natura_naturans *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> blinded by science digest [galanter, geer] Louise Desrenards *<nettime> Dotcom Observatory Special: AOL Watch geert lovink *<nettime> abroeck: Reseau/Resonance Andreas Broeckmann *<nettime> Call for discussion! nettime's_spamkritik *<nettime> I don't want to be alone in the 21st century Cornelia Sollfrank *<nettime> froomkin: toward a critical theory of cyberspace t byfield *<nettime> Could we be tracked by micro RFID tags? (fwd) Heiko Recktenwald *<nettime> p.s.: don't forget to water the rhizome! digest [flagan, guderian] nettime's_theoretical_potato *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> p.s.: don't forget to water the rhizome! digest [flagan, guderian] porculus *<nettime> frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley] nettime's_infernal_machinist *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley] Daniel Young *Re: <nettime> frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley] Benjamin Geer *<nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left m e t a *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left Don Cameron *<nettime> 'No' to going it alone Ben Moretti *<nettime> The Data-Life Theory Timothy Jaeger *<nettime> unstable digest vol 30 Florian Cramer *<nettime> brother, can you spare a rhizome digest [calin, bowman, hwang] nettime's_tin_cup *<nettime> warkogram [x2]: wark on lessig on supreme court McKenzie Wark *<nettime> rhizome: burn rate t byfield *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> rhizome: burn rate Rachel Greene *Re: <nettime> rhizome: burn rate John Hopkins *Re: FW: <nettime> rhizome: burn rate Mark Tribe *<nettime> on rhizome kevin lahoda *<nettime> phone indymedia patch - PIMP dr.woooo *<nettime> revenge of the concept Keith Hart *<Possible follow-ups> *Re: <nettime> revenge of the concept Brian Holmes *Re: <nettime> revenge of the concept Keith Hart *<nettime> revenge of the concept McKenzie Wark *<nettime> Dissent of WTC Architectural Fakery bc *<nettime> CALL DOW WEDNESDAY Ray Thomas *<nettime> Re: Fw: Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired Raul Ferrera-Balanquet *<nettime> FW: [CC] BREAKING NEWS! AOL PULLS PLUG ON DIGITALCITY- Without Telling Any one Else Michael Gurstein *<nettime> Bombing Error in Afghanistan Puts a Spotlight on Pilots' Pills J Armitage *Re: <nettime> rhizome: burn rate [3x] nettime's cultural investor *<nettime> The Spam Jamboree geert lovink *<nettime> r h i z o m e digest [alexander, hunsinger, brace] nettime's_privatization_authority *<nettime> r h i z o m e dgst [x5] nettime's_fickle_customer *<nettime> War Economics 101 Are Flagan *<nettime> (rooting|routing) rhizome digest [pope, tribe x2, broeckmann] nettime's_gardener *<nettime> Fwd: sms, pimp, etc dr.woooo *<nettime> Why and how pollsters fake Chavez's "plummeting" popularity Craig Brozefsky *<nettime> The Zapatistas to Invade Spain! ricardo dominguez *<nettime> who's rhizoming who digest [porculus, byfield, bowman] nettime' s_fun_raiser *<nettime> Strategic Principles bc *<nettime> Publications [14x] Announcer *<nettime> [Fwd: Davos WEF, Live Report] patrice *<nettime> Fwd: Aesthetic Biology, Biological Art (Rifkin, bioart, science) Eugene Thacker *<nettime> Venezuelan Political Soap Opera or why are you so Liberal Ricardo Bello *<nettime> [meta-list] Re:[nettime] the neurosis of being earnest Lachlan Brown *<nettime> The Internet in Uganda Steve Cisler 2.0 [spectre] re: Arns/Broeckmann Andreas Broeckmann spectre@mikrolisten.de Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:17:31 +0100 This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. [via anna balint. I thought that it would be fair to offer another aspect of the story, once Andreas Broecmann and Inke Arns started an international campaign to discredit individual artists and the syndicate list. is there room at spectre at least for a more complex approach when an artist on whom bombs were falling is infamed? greetings -a.] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:10:31 +0100 From: Andrej Tisma <aart@EUnet.yu> Organization: Happiness Subject: Re: Rise and Decline of the Syndicate A very touching report on Syndicate history, indeed. But listmasters should have admit some of their faults too, for their full right to mention the word ethics. Since I am mentioned personally in the report, and I am thankful for former listmasters' understanding for keeping me on Syndicate all the time (unlike Nettime), I want to stress once more: yes I was expressing my anti-Western and anti-NATO attitude, and I am doing it still with the same intensity. But in that very vivid artistic and political engagement my aim was never to defend "Milosevic regime" (in the same logic I could claim you defended Clinton's or Schroeder's regime on this list), but rather to oppose Western, mostly American neoimperialism, interventionism and globalization, like many progressive Western intellectuals do. In that aim I had and still have a great support and admiration by numerous people world-wide, specially on the West. Even now when "Milosevic regime" doesn't exist, you might remark that my activities didn't stop or change, and that they are maybe even growing. Also the support for my engagement and art is growing, and with time and new Western violent, arrogant and inhuman activities the statements I was publishing on the list seam to get more proofs. This is what I wanted to say. And about reasons of Syndicate's "decline" you should also ask yourselves, if it was right to leave the list in the most difficult and sensitive moment, or you just felt that your mastering is under reasonable questioning, which you couldn't endure. Regards, Andrej Arns/Broeckmann wrote: > The case of Andrej Tisma, a > Yugoslav artist from multi-cultural Novi Sad and a defender of the > Milosevic regime throughout the late 90s, is a case in point: many > perceived his tirades against the West and against NATO as pure Serbian > propaganda which became unbearable at some point. Later, Tisma came back to > the list and continued his criticisms by posting links to anti-NATO web > pages he had created. For us, he was always an interesting sign post of > Serb nationalist ideology which it was good to be aware of. And it was good > that he showed that people can be artists 'like you and me', and be Serb > nationalists at the same time. The Syndicate could handle his presence > after he agreed to tune down his rants. -- ANDREJ TISMA is Novi Sad (Yugoslavia) based artist, art critic and curator. Since the early '70s mail-artist and networker. Founder of The Institute for the Spreading of Love (1991) and Embargo Art campaign (1992). Since 1997 web.artist and activist. HOMEPAGE: http://aaart.tripod.com/ 3.0 The Syndicate - building a history bronac ferran <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:43:12 +0100 I think I agree with Armin, but even further reinforced by seeing an intriguing new film at the AND Festival yesterday in Liverpool made by Aleksanda Domanovic which is called From Yu to Me, and addresses the actual making/building of an internet connection in the former Yugoslavia before the yu domain was created in 1989 largely to do with the efforts of two female scientists, Borka Jerman Blasik and Mirjana Tasic whose profound testimony of under the radar academic moving and shaking was mirrored both in the film and in person in Liverpool yesterday. Great privilege to hear them speak. They came across as relatively lacking in vanity about establishing some place in art or otherwise history ... http://www.andfestival.org.uk/events/from-yu-to-me/ I think the film is going to be online at some stage soon, Aleksandra is still working on it. It has been commissioned by AND with Fridericianum and Rhizome. maybe just my own perception there is a sort of 'let me show you my vinyl record collection' tone emerging here...like the recently dead brought gratefully back to life in a muted form, inevitably seems to be missing somehow the pain of the punctuating flame. half seriously B 3.1 The Syndicate - building a history of lists Charlotte Frost <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 18:40:48 +0800 So far we've had little mention of the Syndicate list, which was extensively chronicled in a post to Nettime in 2001 by founding members Inke Arns and Andreas Broeckmann: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0111/msg00077.html. One of the things that I believe was so important to this list at the time (and perhaps even more so with some historical perspective) was the voice it gave people of the former Yugoslavia during its civil war. It's common place now to talk about how platforms like Twitter break through political censorship ­ Iran and Egypt are good recent examples ­ but on a list like the Syndicate, such freedom of speech could be both a benefit and a detractor, as Arns and Broeckmann note. I'd love to know if anyone involved with the list at this time would like to recall individual posts that illustrate this difficult period. And also more generally if anyone would venture an account of their relationship with the Syndicate ­ what collaboration its led to, and what it was like to lose it ­ especially in light of the comments we've already had about how much of loss the Rhizome Raw list was. Inke and Andreas, I've BCC'd you in case you have time to offer anything to this discussion on Media Art Curating ­ I can forward your responses if you are not current subscribers/are pushed for time. You'll find more on this month's discussions here: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=new-media-curating All the best, Charlotte 3.2 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Armin Medosch <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 13:05:44 +0200 Hi Charlotte, while it is surely interesting to recall individual posts I think it is also importatt to point out that many of those posting could only do so because they had access to the net and that in itself was nothing to be taken for granted. A great role in that respect plaid Zamir net which started in 1992 and which connected peace activists in former Yugoslavian states ... there is a wikipedia entry about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZaMirNET Another, less well known story is how Serbian hackers ensured email connectivity for civil society at a time when Serbia was under international embargo and didn't even have a domain name. As I have tried to point out in the past, without much success, the material layer of networking also matters. Arts and humanities scholars have a tendency to ascribe too much importance to what you could call the semantic and symbolic layer. No email from Serbia would have found its way to the syndicate list withoute having a route to travel on. Those routes are provided by people who also have cultural and political ideas, so that those human-technical assemblages also have meaning, if you so want, something that should also be considered, hwever, without tipping over into a one-sided materialism all best Armin 3.3 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists mez breeze <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:17:13 +1100 Forwarding some individual posting from Syndicate [not those illustrating political relations, or any subversive channels, but more those that describe internal turmoil(s) within the list itself]: 1. -- From: "self re:ply.cator" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [syndicate] Re: Yes, but is it art? At 03:45 PM 3/10/2002 +0100, f wrote: of course, everybody knows that I am an advocate of list disruption, the difference is that I think that ultimately this should be beneficial to the list and not to the disrupter alone. fred, i'm curious as 2 how u distinguish the difference? firstly, i'd lurve u 2 d.fine _beneficial_ in terms of how it affects list cohesion & function, & how this individualisation of subscriber identification can operate along this benefit-deficit scale? also how this affects the pulse communication function that most list labor under.........? the huge difference is the cross posting cross posting is the bane of mailing lists y, fred? u seem 2 b aligning yr perception with.in a niche that advocates members of various mailing lists live under the i][a][ll.usion that the net.work perpetuates this insularism, that every1 who is n.terested in b.ing subbed 2 various mailing lists x.ist in a mono-data-directed vaccum that can only cope with _1_ manifest x.posure to information.......that those who r only n.terested in connecting 2 1 nodepoint, via _1_ list forum, do not have the right 2 b x.posed 2 data b.cause of the _n.con][ned][venience this wood cause 2 those more -connected_ via multiple nodes........r u really n.terested in promoting x.clusion & data closure b.cause of this top-down hierarchical slant in terms of network function? i. am. stained. with. repetition. [re.peat] ::the chip.mark of the net. ::][kulture][work::abbreviated strokes::sampling::a][scii][graffiti::code langues::bass.house::jung][le][mantras .all .][t][h][r][ive .in .he][a][re..... why are there different mailing lists ? with (hopefully) different subscribers, different topics, different functionalities, different roots and different histories ? ah, the hub. d i f f e r e n c e [n.sert perpetual loop] n.deed, y r there? this _difference_ is telling........instead of operating via this divergent take, i c the net.work as a _whole_, operational in terms of infosharing & dispersal........ this difference, this reliance on the in box as a box, not as a ][link][node........ HISTORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????? f, surely u jest here, histories???? history doesn't x.ist, it is a fiction @ best........ cross posting can never be justified f, _u think|perceive this_. this is not a statement of fact [or |||||||||||||||history|||||||||||]. because it nullifies the very nature of each mailing list, because it specifically adresses none of them. i c it as _ratifiying_ the nature of mailing lists.......n][et][ature as d.fined by connexion, communicative points in an x.tendible net of flow & flux......do u want 2 x.clude those not so ego-n.trenched in this net.baggage? if _xXx_ is subbed to syndicate but not 2 _reader-list_, and info is not cross-posted due to x.clusionary individualisation via blanket withdrawal of crucial info due 2 justifications such as u yr espousing, do u c that _xXx_ is then x.cluded from x.posure 2 info _from which_ they can then choose 2 x.pose themselves 2? [filters. r. yr|the. x.clusionists. friend.] therefore it turns the attention on the cross poster only (having discarded any and every notion of communality) and it becomes obvious that the cross poster is only willing to momentarily confiscate the _numbers and that is what I find terribly abusive. oh f, do u c that yr perception here is crucial 2 the formation of yr point above? do u c that u think that cross-posting hi-lights the ego-definition of the poster in such a way that their characteristics are etched all over the forum? i. offer. a different. view. these numbers that u assume r being overwritten [due 2 non-responsivity|lurking b.haviour etc], this community that is b.ing [in yr view] blanked out due 2 the nature of x.tended information x.posure is d.fined by wot x.actly? wot makes up the community here, in this net.worked area? is it repetition of dialogical conventions? participation via manifest post activity? access 2 information? access 2 communication via other enitiy participation? wot? not that it bothers me that much beyond the fact that I find it either willingly manipulative or lacking in reflexion about networking indeed it bothers me greatly that u'd offer these opinions & not firstly c that they r in fact _drenched with yr individualistic-ego driven spin_...as r my opinions....wot matters here 4 me is that this _community_ of mailing lists [in my case, network connectors] r being bandied around as cohesive structures in which individuals autonomously activate data _without_ any nuanced understanding of the mechanisms via which these communities act\interactive\x.ist....... u need 2 x.plain the community function 2 me, within the confines of a mailing list forum. [pre.tend - or ack.no.ledge- i. am. an. idiot.] ~ a signature comme toujours well, peut etre, but it seems that _everything must be explained (gosh!) absolutely. if u start a multilogue like this f, b prepared 2 x.plain|n.gage in multilogues. it is 4 the good of the _community_ after all.....;) x.tendibly, mez . . .... ..... net.wurker][mez][ [trans. loose. (e)NT][ity][] [sel][l][f reply.cation] { www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/ www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker .... . .??? ....... -- 3.4 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists mez breeze <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:20:34 +1100 2. -- To: syndicate From: "self re:ply.cator" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [syndicate] Re: Yes, but is it art? At 01:40 PM 3/11/2002 -0800, m wrote: >> >>why are there different mailing lists ? >> >n.deed, y r there? this _difference_ is telling........instead of >> operating via this divergent take, i c the net.work as a _whole_, >> operational in terms of infosharing & dispersal........ >> to take this reasoning further you should hire a bulk email company and spam the whole world. seriously. has any artist ever done this? not 2 my know.ledge......[doesn't mean it hasn't been done, though;)] just b.cause i perceive the net.work as a whole, a tapestry of potentialities of defor][com][m][unic][ation doesn't mean i advocate [or carry out] _blanket spamming_ activity.....this sys.t][n][e][t][m displays n.tricate s][ilicon][ymbiotic tendencies which shift & pulse data via n.finite variations...just as i don't c a mailing lists such as syndicate as static or x.clusively filled with a group of n.tities that r non-changing & there4 r all hyperaware of how the forum ][can][ function][s][, i don't perceive mailing list as non-communal in scope or ][wo][manifestation......... my. p][ercept][atterning. is. reticular. of course there would be serious repurcusions which may mean it is better for a non-entity? i'm not sure....... like nn to do this. the possibilities are amusing to think about. or do you see your message as being more focused than this which would mean you concede to heirarchical data nodes? not sure if i c _my message_ [& by this i take u 2 mean the fluttering code.symbology i use in my mezangelled wurks] as focused, but more flu][idic][vial.....do u c this as perpetuating hierarchical data methods? mim.e.t][h][ically, mez . . .... ..... net.wurker][mez][ [trans. loose. (e)NT][ity][] [sel][l][f reply.cation] { www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/ www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker .... . .??? ....... 3.5 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Simon Biggs <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:23:22 +0100 If there's a list that has achieved the stated aims of the Syndicate list (dedicated to constructive debate that excludes announcements, promotion and artist's actions) then that would be empyre (established by Melinda Rackham in 2002 and still going strong). This has been achieved by moderating every email posted to the list, ensuring that only those that are on topic reach the list (which is different each month, curated, with invited discussants). This is a bit of work and does sometimes mean censoring posts, but not as much as you would imagine, especially as the list has over 1500 members. The culture of the list is well established and generally self-regulates. Other lists that are similarly closely moderated include Yasmin (having similar ambitions to Syndicate, but instead of the East/West Europe focus its is the north/south pan mediterranean that is engaged) and DASH, with a focus on digital arts history. The opposite of these lists is Netbehaviour, which is totally open and unmoderated. Like empyre, its culture is well established and there are rarely conflicts or other issues - certainly nothing like what happened on Nettime, Syndicate and 55 in the 90's, where flaming was common. Why the difference? Perhaps the rise of mainstream social media platforms has taken the pressure of listservs, with those members that remain being generally dedicated to what listservs are good for - textual exchange. Just a thought... best Simon 3.6 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Darko Fritz <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:14:24 +0200 Hi all Klaudio Stefancic wrote about ZaMirNET among other topics, in his text New Media - New Networks / New Media Art in Croatia http://turbulence.org/blog/2008/07/14/spectre-klaudio-stefancic-new-media-art-in-croatia/ http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0807/msg00024.html and Geert Lovink about Syndicate Lovink, Geert. — My first recession : critical Internet culture in transition. — Rotterdam : V2_Organisation, Institute for the Unstable Media, 2003 "In the third chapter, "Deep Europe and the Kosovo Conflict," Lovink presents his first case study of a parallel network: the Syndicate mailing list created in 1996, and the project Deep Europe, which forged ties between communities in Western and Eastern Europe. By supplementing his analysis with posts from the mailing list, Lovink shows how this network gradually opened up to people outside the media arts community. The involvement of outsiders intensified during NATO interventions in Kosovo when Syndicate served an alternative news media. In 2000, Syndicate shut down as the result of "trolls" saturating the list with encrypted messages. Lovink details the issues raised by the rapid expansion of a collectively developed forum exposed to this type of information overload." best regards Darko 3.7 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Sally-Jane Norman <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:52:35 +0000 Agree with Armin. The "human-technical assemblages" Syndicate was made of were vital. I'm sure Andreas and Inke will be able and well placed to respond, but maybe the swansong mail they posted on nettime provides a useful overview in the mean time. It's a long story marked by a deep ethos and visionary generosity on the part of those who put the effort into launching and maintaining it, like any that engages deep inter-personal and collective communication. Hard to do justice with hindsight. Especially from the perspective of 2013 list-log-blog-surf culture. best sj <nettime> Rise and Decline of the Syndicate To: nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net Subject: <nettime> Rise and Decline of the Syndicate From: Arns/Broeckmann <inke {AT} snafu.de> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:52:49 +0100 Reply-To: Arns/Broeckmann <inke {AT} snafu.de> Rise and Decline of the Syndicate: the End of an Imagined Community Inke Arns & Andreas Broeckmann, Berlin, November 2001 The Syndicate mailing list imploded and went down in August 2001, destroying the life-line of the Syndicate network. The network had been in a shaky situation for a while, due - we believe - to the destabilisation of the problematic balance between personal contacts of list members, lurking and filtering-and-not-reading-let-alone-posting subscribers, and a growing number of self-promoters who used the list as a personal performance space and disregarded the social rules of the online community. Some people insisted on continuing the list on a new server, taking over the subscriber list, while we decided to form a new list, SPECTRE, which has been running on the previous Syndicate list-serve in Berlin since 28 Aug 2001. The list currently has 250 new subscribers (Nov 01) and continues the tradition of the Syndicate list as a low-noise, open platform for exchange and cooperation in media culture in Europe. After six years of successful work with and for the Syndicate community, the demise of the Syndicate list in August 2001 was a rather shocking experience for many of us, imposing on us the realisation how feeble such a community channel can be, and how easily destroyed. It proved that responsibility and care are essential elements in a viable social online environment, and we had to learn the hard way that there is no consensus about the rules that should guide behaviour and interaction. The following text gives a brief summary from our personal perspective of the Syndicate initiative as it developed since its inception in 1996, and attempts an evaluation of its end. Andreas started administering the Syndicate mailing list after its installation on the server of the Ars Electronica Center in Linz (aec.at) in January 1996, helping people to subscribe, unsubscribe and post to the majordomo list. As the subscriber base grew from the original 30 subscribers to about 300 in 1998, Inke joined in administering the list and - together with Arthur Bueno of the V2_Organisation in Rotterdam, who also maintained the Syndicate website and archive on www.v2.nl/syndicate from 1998-2000 - mostly managed the list administration through these years. We taught ourselves the basic majordomo commands, had our private mail accounts jammed with bounced messages, and therefore installed an admin account. Each time we would look into this account there would be hundreds of mails sitting there and voraciously waiting for us ... but somehow it worked. Problems started appearing on an entirely different field. With its completely open structure (technically and socially speaking) the Syndicate mailing list soon proved to be vulnerable. In the beginning of November 1998 the list was first targeted: all the subscribers were unsubscribed. Luckily we had been extracting the "who"-file on an almost daily basis and thus were able to reconstruct the list quickly. In September 2000 the list software on the server faced a serious crash which the sysops in Linz could not take care of because of the festival they were in at the time. So we decided to relocate the list onto a server to which we would have easier access for administration and configuration. Since then, the Syndicate list was hosted by an ISP in Berlin (openoffice.de) which also soon gave us the opportunity to switch from Majordomo to the more easily administratable Mailman software. But the Syndicate was much more than a piece of software: it was a network of people. The Syndicate was founded in January 1996 on the last day of the Next 5 Minutes 2 Festival in Rotterdam. It was a network which devoted itself to fostering contacts and co-operation, improvements in communication and an exchange between institutions and individuals in Eastern and Western Europe active in the media and media culture. By allowing regular e-mail communication between participants regarding forthcoming events and collaborative projects the Syndicate mailing list developed into an important channel and information resource for announcing and reporting new projects, events and developments in media culture. The complete mail archive is kept at http://www.v2.nl/mail/v2east/ Since the first meeting in Rotterdam in 1996, which was attended by 30 media artists and activists, journalists and curators from 12 Eastern and Western European countries, the Syndicate network grew steadily. In August 2001, it linked over 500 members from more than 30 European and a number of non-European countries. The original idea was to establish an East-West network as well as an East-East network. In the meantime, however, the Syndicate had increasingly developed into an all-European forum for media culture and art. Over the last few years the division between East and West had been growing less important as people cooperated in ever-changing constellations, in ad-hoc as well as long-lasting partnerships. Syndicate meetings and workshops have been held regularly, in most cases as part of festivals and conferences. The main meetings have taken place at half-yearly intervals in Rotterdam (Sept. 96), Liverpool (April 97), Kassel (July 97), Dessau (Nov. 97), Tirana (May 98), Skopje (Oct. 98), Budapest (April 99), and Helsinki (Oct. 99), with many smaller meetings and joint projects, presentations and workshops happening in between. Readers edited by Inke and published on the occasion of some of the meetings (Rotterdam 1996, Ostranenie Dessau 1997, Junction Skopje 1998) have collected the most important texts from the mailing list in printed form. It was worth condensing Syndicate stuff in this way because most of the time the mail traffic was dominated by announcements. Attempts to turn the Syndicate list into a discussion list and encouragements for people to send their personal reports, views, perceptions of what was happening, were met by only limited response. In the beginning, when many people on the list still knew each other personally, this strategy was more successful, later, with the exploding rate of lurkers, less. While in the first three years of its existence, the Syndicate held its meetings quite regularly (almost every six months!), and organised panels and workshops with its members, since 1999 the Syndicate list came to be more like a sleeping beauty which in times of crisis would awake and show its full potential. Suddenly, when necessary, everybody was back on, communicating almost breathlessly with each other ("Have you heard about X?" - "The cultural center Y was closed!" - "Z received his mobilisation call.") The list was last activated in order to support Edi Muka, Tirana-based long term Syndicalist, who had been sacked from his post at the cultural center Pyramid by some politically malevolent officials. The meetings and personal contacts off-list were an essential part of the Syndicate network: they grounded the Syndicate in a network of friendly and working relationships, with strong ties and allegiances that spanned across Europe and made many cooperations between artists, initiatives and institutions possible. The Syndicate thus opened multiple channels between artists and cultural producers in Europe and beyond, which is probably its greatest achievement. It connected people and made them aware of each other's practice, creating multiple options for international cooperation projects. A structure like that can work so long as it is supported and protected by a sufficient number of participants. It needs an ethical consensus about what is and what isn't possible on the list, which kinds of actions support and which may tilt the social equilibrium. The case of Andrej Tisma, a Yugoslav artist from multi-cultural Novi Sad and a defender of the Milosevic regime throughout the late 90s, is a case in point: many perceived his tirades against the West and against NATO as pure Serbian propaganda which became unbearable at some point. Later, Tisma came back to the list and continued his criticisms by posting links to anti-NATO web pages he had created. For us, he was always an interesting sign post of Serb nationalist ideology which it was good to be aware of. And it was good that he showed that people can be artists 'like you and me', and be Serb nationalists at the same time. The Syndicate could handle his presence after he agreed to tune down his rants. However, this consensus was further eroded through the last two years. The nn episode on Syndicate in August 2001, then, was a symptom, but not the reason for the death of Syndicate. This started way before August 2001. Not only that there were no more meetings after 1999, one could also notice that since mid 1999 people felt less and less responsible for the list. Many Syndicalists of the first hour grew more silent (this was partly incited by the hefty discussions during the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia), perhaps more weary, perhaps less naive, many also changed their personal circumstances and got involved in other things (new jobs, new families, new countries ...). At the same time, the number of subscribers kept growing: more and more newbies kept flowing onto the Syndicate list. The major change that occurred on the Syndicate around that time (1999) was the transition from a network of people and of trust to a more and more anonymous mailing list, a list for announcements like so many others. A growing majority of Syndicate subscribers now tended to see the mailing list merely as a quick and handy tool for spreading self promotion. The mailing list was to serve them for promotional goals, rather than as a tool of communication. When calls went out for support in the adminstration of the list, far too few people responded at all. Many people still do not understand the voluntary nature of the Syndicate initiative, and that the whole project depended on the sharing of work and responsibility. Too many people took the efforts of too few people for granted. Investing time and energy in the administration of such a list became more and more frustrating. When some fellow Syndicalists joined the admin team early 2001, we could have realised that the project had peaked and should have been transformed into something different altogether. The net entity nn (Netochka Nezvanova, integer, antiorp, etc.), a pseudonym used by an international group of artists and programmers in their extensive and aggressive mailing list-based online-performances and for other art projects, had been subscribed to the Syndicate list in 1997. It was, as the first of less than a handful of people ever, unsubscribed against its will because it was spamming the list so heavily that all meaningful communication was blocked. In January 2001, nn sent an e-mail asking to again be subscribed to the Syndicate mailing list. (What nn never bothered to realise was that subscription to the list had always been open so that, at any point, it could have subscribed itself - we have always wondered why Majordomo is such a blind spot in this technophile entity's arsenal.) After getting assurances from nn that she was not out to misuse the list, we subscribed it to the Syndicate list. Naively, as we had to realise. nn went from one or two messages every day in February to an average of three to five message in April and up to eight and ten messages per day in May and June - and that on a list which had a regular daily traffic of three to five messages a day. The distributed nature of the nn collective makes it possible for them to keep posting 24 hours a day - great for promoting your online presence, irritating for people who have a less frantic life rhythm. nn's messages are always cryptic, sometimes amusing, often tediously repetitive in their quirky rhetorics and style, and generally irritating for the majority of people. Its activity on the Syndicate - like on many other lists it has used and terrorised - soon came to look like a hijack. But the sheer mass of traffic nn was generating, the sheer amount of nn's presence, was overwhelming. Perhaps this phenomenon could be compared to SMEGL, short for super mental grid lock, a term that was developed to describe traffic jam situations in NYC back in the eighties (or was this term coined in Berlin-Kreuzberg's famous Fischbuero? Who knows, the boundaries get blurred...). In the spring of 2001, nn's and other people's activities who use open, unmoderated mailing lists for promulgating their self-promotional e-mails, triggered discussions about 'spam art', on Syndicate as well as on other lists. Actually, given the extreme openness and vulnerability of a structure like the Syndicate it remains quite astonishing that this structure survived for such a long time. What happened in the course of 2000/2001 (not only to Syndicate, but also to several other mailing lists) was that the openness of these lists, i.e. the fact that they were unmoderated, was massively abused, and, finally, destroyed, by relentless 'creative' spamming. One of the basic principles of the Internet - its openness - suddenly seemed to become a mere tool for attacking this very principle. 'Netiquette' did not seem to be of much value anymore and was sacrificed for the egotistical self-expression of (distributed) artist egos. The irony of this process is that, like any good parasite, this artistic practice depends on the existence of lively online communities: it not only bites, but kills the hand that feeds it. - These parasite nomads will find new hosts, no doubt, but they have over the past year helped to erode the social fabric of the wider net cultural population so much that communities have to protect themselves from attacks and hijacks more aggressively than before. Their adolescent carelessness is partly responsible for the withering of the romantic utopia of a completely open, sociable online environment. However educational that may be, we despise the deliberation with which these people act. nn got unsubscribed from the Syndicate without warning on a day when there had been nothing but ten messages from her. After some days of silence and sighs of relief, angry protests by nn came through. On the list, accusations of censorship and/or dictatorship were made. A small but noisy faction denounced unsubscribing nn as an act against the freedom of speech. They called the administrators fascists, murderers, and 'threatened' to report the case to 'Index on Censorship'. While some other list members welcomed the departure of nn on and off the list and the admin team again and again explained their move, the ludicrous allegations and vociferous insults continued. The real shock for us was that the majority of list subscribers did not participate in the discussion and thus silently seemed to accept what was going on. It was personally hurtful not to receive more support against the insults raised against us, but more frustrating was the indifference that made the whole process possible. Within few days, the alienation from the atmosphere on the list was so great that we admitted defeat, re-subscribed nn and began to withdraw from the Syndicate. The list was moved to a different server and is now administered by other people at anart.no/~syndicate. We wanted to avoid further verbiage and conflict and therefore gave up the name, but we insist that from our perspective the Syndicate project that was founded in 1996 ended in August 2001. What remains under its name is a zombie kept alive by misconceptions about what the Syndicate really was. Maybe we should have stopped the project altogether in the summer? Filtering has, in a way, done us in. Before there were effective e-mail clients that could filter out lists and other mail communication, everybody on the list got everything more or less instantly, which also meant a higher level of social awareness and social control of what goes on on the list. Today, many people filter the lists they subscribe to and only look at the postings at irregular intervals - some mailboxes don't get opened for months. Like this, people consume the list passively and do not even notice a fiasco like the one that we experienced on the Syndicate list in the summer. I guess that some people who remain subscribed to the Syndicate list still have not noticed that anything has changed. For a social community, that kind of behaviour - automated deferance - can be fatal. "There's a spectre haunting Europe ..." In August 2001, after unsubscribing from the Syndicate, we initiated a new mailing list under the name SPECTRE. It is an open, unmoderated list for media art and culture in Deep Europe. SPECTRE offers a channel for practical information exchange concerning events, projects and initiatives organized within the field of media culture, and hosts discussions and critical commentary about the development of art, culture and politics in and beyond Europe. Deep Europe is not a particular territory, but is based on an attitude and experience of layered identities and histories - ubiquitous in Europe, yet in no way restricted by its topographical borders. (The term Deep Europe was coined by Anna Balint in 1996. It was passed on by Geert Lovink. It was used by Andreas Broeckmann and Inke Arns. It was interpreted by Luchezar Boyadjiev. It was used more by Sally Jane Norman, Iliyana Nedkova, Nina Czegledy, Edi Muka, and many others.) SPECTRE is a channel for people involved in old and new media in art and culture. Importantly, many people on this list know each other personally. SPECTRE aims to facilitate real-life meetings and favours real face-to-face (screen-to-screen) cooperation, test-bed experiences and environments to provoke querying of issues of cultural identity/identification and difference (translatable as well as untranslatable or irreducible). The new list was immediately welcomed by many frustrated Syndicalists who quickly made the move. SPECTRE is an unmoderated, but by not means open mailing list. With the Syndicate experience in mind we felt the need to explicitely formulate some basic, apparently no longer self-evident netiquette rules, like "meaningful discussions require mutual respect," and "self-advertise with care!" The list is initially hosted by the two of us who also have to approve requests for subscription. The blurb explicitely reads: "Subscriptions may be terminated or suspended in the case of persistent violation of netiquette." We regret that we have to introduce such a system of control but see no other effective way of protecting something that is dear to us. A lack of sensible protection brought down the Syndicate. Information about SPECTRE: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre We try to continue the good Syndicate tradition of amiable exchange and are more hesitant about the illusion of being an 'online community'. We maintain our romantic belief in lasting friendships and insist on the need to infuse networks with a strong sense of conviviality. We believe in people and their needs more than we believe in art. Inke Arns, Andreas Broeckmann Berlin, November 2001 3.8 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Honor Harger <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:34:46 +0100 Hi Chrlotte, all, Thanks for bringing up The Syndicate. >So far we've had little mention of the Syndicate list > >And also more generally if anyone would venture an account of their >relationship with the Syndicate - what collaboration its led to, and what >it was like to lose it - It was easily the most transformation mailing list I've ever been on. It changed the way I viewed the world, opened up parts of it to me in ways that lead to projects and collaborations that are amongst my most treasured, and gave me my most valued network for many years. It wouldn't be overstating it to say that it changed my life. I remember very well when the list was hijacked. It was deeply unpleasant, and Andreas in particular bore the brunt of some particularly unpleasant, childish behaviour by the idiots who attacked it. But in a sense we didn't really lose it. We migrated to Spectre, and whilst the list hasn't got the same discursive quality it did at the Syndicate's peak, I think that's probably as much down to the way that people's behaviour on mailing lists have changed, in the wake of social media. Best, Honor -- Honor Harger Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: +44 7765834272 http://about.me/honor Work Artistic Director, Lighthouse, Brighton, UK http://www.lighthouse.org.uk Talks TED: http://is.gd/harger Lift: http://is.gd/lifttalk Shift Happens: http://is.gd/shifttalk Blogs Particle Decelerator: http://decelerator.blogspot.com/ Art & Technology: http://honorharger.wordpress.com/ 3.9 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Honor Harger <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:34:56 +0100 Armin wrote: >As I have tried to point out in the past, without much success, the >material layer of networking also matters. Arts and humanities >scholars have a tendency to ascribe too much importance to what you >could call the semantic and symbolic layer. No email from Serbia >would have found its way to the syndicate list withoute having a >route to travel on. Those routes are provided by people who also >have cultural and political ideas, so that those human-technical >assemblages also have meaning, if you so want, something that should >also be considered, hwever, without tipping over into a one-sided >materialism This is an excellent point, and one we've been trying to make through our work at Lighthouse in exposing the material infrastructures on which our experience of the internet is built. We're currently exploring this in an exhibition called 'Immaterials' (http://is.gd/immaterials), and the notion of infrastructure, how we perceive, understand it and act within it, was a major topic of our Improving Reality conference last month. When the talks are up, I'll post them here. Thanks for raising these excellent examples from the former-Yugoslavia, Armin. Have you got any references you could point me to for further reading? best, -- Honor Harger Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: +44 7765834272 http://about.me/honor Work Artistic Director, Lighthouse, Brighton, UK http://www.lighthouse.org.uk 3.10 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Armin Medosch <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:48:30 +0200 Hi Honor, I think Darko actually provided the reference you needed, I would assume Geert has researched that meticulously. The Serbian story I mentioned is from an unpublished interview done long ago, I am not sure if I can find that at all, its on an old backup disk, maybe ... all best Armin 3.11 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Andreas Broeckmann <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:45:54 +0200 dear friends, thanks for bringing this up. i'm not sure whether i have anything new to say about the syndicate that we have not already said in the 2001 article which sally posted. - being so personally involved from the preparatory conversations in 1995 to the ugly collapse in 2001, i have always found it difficult to gage the more general relevance of the syndicate; but i believe that for many people in the emerging central and east european media and art communities of the 90s, it was an important source of information that provided multiple contact points to each other, and to a wider, international scene. remember also that at the time, for the 50+ core group of the syndicate, the personal encounters during the Syndicate Meetings which took place once or twice a year, possibly had a deeper impact on us that the mailing list could have on its own. there are some other materials on the v2 archive: http://v2.nl/archive/organizations/syndicate?searchterm=syndicate and there are reflexions on the role of the syndicate list in research texts by Geert Lovink (was already mentioned here), Rasa Smite, and Clemens Apprich (forthcoming). unfortunately, the archive of the syndicate list on the v2 servers has been lost and it would be great if we could find a place and help to put it back online. i assume that some people will have more or less complete archives on their back-up disks (zone and vuk were diligent collectors of everything back then). if anybody could offer some concrete, practical help on this, i'd be happy to hear from you. regards, -a 3.12 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Sean Cubitt <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:11:22 +0000 Fascinating discussions (my first email list was rhizome, which Simon Biggs introduced me to around 1994 I think). Two lists of great significance for the people using them: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/fibreculture_listcultures.org/ - mainly Australian, the archive online only goes back to 2010 but the list was much older: perhaps others can add a note on whether the archives are stil available for the earlier period. Fibreculture went into autodestruct in the mid 2000s, mprphing into a community of blogs and a journal and of course Sarai.net (their server is chuntering this morning so I can't check if the archives are still there) Annick gives us a reminder that even in those early days English was not the only language online sean 3.13 Re: The Syndicate - building a history Charlotte Frost <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:54:30 +0800 Yes Armin, thank you for that important new materialist point. In my own work I have been trying to think through the materiality of art historical practice. Not the artworks, but the objects art historians use and produce in their own work. It troubles me greatly that art historical work is seen as somehow beyond a media criticism of it's own (for example, you can't have art history without photographs and the means of taking them and distributing them). So this more tangible physical network has been on my mind but you put it so much more eloquently. And now to have Broanc connect this to a film is really very useful. 3.14 Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists Charlotte Frost <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:40:34 +0800 Sean, thanks so much for bringing up Sarai, I'm bcc-ing a few people in the hopes they can direct this message to those who can tell us about the Sarai list history and archives. 4.0 [Nettime-bold] Re: [syndicate] Rise and Decline of the Syndica Claudia Westermann nettime-bold@nettime.org Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:27:33 +0100 bonjour, just resending something. It is about human being's incababilty to deal with a subject of community, which most of the time leads to authoritarian actions. I sent this already on September 9th.... a kind of abstract reply to what happened on Syndicate. Might be also interesting in regard to responsibility of the the events of September 11th. ( not that I am thinking, that nn's actions can be compared to this. It's ridiculous. NN provides a mirror and looking at it and the reflections of the world I can see in it, I just think that there is a long way to go. ) When do people start to think ? Regarding the movement excitement of Syndicate mailing list.... well a look into the archives will show, that Broeckmann / Arns refused any public discussion on the list, once they decided to give it up. I guess many of us have these mailings in their mailbox. Not really necessary to resend them. Or is it ? ..... and hm..... Syndicate is by the way the most loveliest list, I think... I like it now, very lively. Claudia _________________________________________________________ I really think, that the text is fragmentary ( and also would need some editing of my English ), but ... well anyway, impossible to put some ten years of urban / architectural studies into such a text ... it's more about giving an idea a web version is here: http://anart.no/~syndicate/2001-09-09_18-23_+02.html From: Claudia Westermann [media@ezaic.de] Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 18:23:50 +0200 Subject: [Syndicate] learning processes / no border concept A fragmentary introduction to social issues on a level of 'city' ( I took the following text from this site www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/zimbardo.htm anyone better informed with the issues of psychology than me may add or correct. The experiment described was done by Philip G. Zimbardo, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. He has an own website at www.zimbardo.com ) __________________________________ Broken Windows In 1969, Zimbardo placed one 1959 Oldsmobile auto on a street across from the Bronx campus of New York University (a ghetto area), and one on a street in Palo Alto, California near the Stanford University campus (a rather affluent area). "The license plates of both cars were removed and the hoods opened to provide the necessary releaser signals (Zimbardo, 1969)." Within three days, the car in the Bronx was completely stripped, the result of 23 separate incidents of vandalism. The car in Palo Alto sat unmolested for over a week. Zimbardo and two of his graduate students decided to provide an example by using a sledgehammer to bash the car. They found that after they had taken the first blow, it was extremely difficult to stop. Observers, who were shouting encouragement, finally joined in the vandalism until the car was completely wrecked. This experiment is the basis of James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows Theory. "The thesis states that human behavior is strongly influenced by symbols of order and disorder. [In a neighborhood] one unrepaired broken window can signal that no one cares, [so that] citizens give in and give up (Wilson, P. L., 1997)." Therefore, the objective for preventing street crimes is to prevent the first window from getting broken, or prevent the first graffiti marks, or prevent the first drunkard from a public display. This has led to Neighborhood Watch programs and increased police foot patrols. These measures have not had a significant impact on crime, but they have succeeded in making neighborhood residents feel safer. __________________________________ the most famous example of the conclusion they made is the City of New York. you can find the following text on the official website. __________________________________ In 1989, Giuliani entered the race for mayor of New York City as a candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties, losing by the closest margin in City history. However in 1993, his campaign focusing on quality of life, crime, business and education made him the 107th Mayor of the City of New York. In 1997 he was re-elected by a wide margin, carrying four out of New York City's five boroughs. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years. __________________________________ a few things they do not mention on their web site is: - the ridiculous high costs (which maybe could be excused) - if you look at the things on a larger scale, you will notice a movement of crime but not a lowering ( I have no statistics available here for the US, but I know, that these kind of things were tried in German cities also, and it always led only to a collapse in other parts) - if you want that it stays 'safe' you have to augment the protection methods permanently Also known of the US is: completely secluded quarters surveilled and protected, excluding everyone else than the people living there and their guests (this is one step further). So, what do they do actually ? As in the above mentioned experiment described, a loss of identity leads to aggressive actions even by people, who you would call 'good' maybe. And in the beginning what was there ? An old car with a broken window apparently not fitting into the system. It is one of the most hardest to bare experiences, when you think of yourself as 'good' and you suddenly realize, that it is very much possible to be 'evil' in a way. The conclusion made, protects the 'good' from the problem of realizing, that they could act in an aggressive way also, what no-one ever had thought could be possible. And to secure in this way the feeling of identity. This is the most common way to solve these things. Does it have to be this way ? There are different concepts also. It is called 'urban project' and contrasts the term of 'urbanistik' (sorry can not find a translation - maybe it's 'urban planning' , not really actually). It means decentralization and participation of the people living there on every possible level. It is based on the same idea of assuring identification, just that the means are different (they have tested these things in smaller German cities, I just speak for the examples I know). As to say for now it can be observed, that the system works on a level of self protection with a simultanous lowering of authoritarian actions. Surprising ? 'urban project' | participation | identification | self protection the self moderation concept discussed on this list would go in the direction of an 'urban project' (actually it's even better, there are more possibilities on a level of virtuality ). this is very shortly... by the way it is not said, that idealistic projects really work out..... errare humanum est Claudia - human 5.0 spam art and blogs Josephine Bosma <new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk> Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:11:37 +0200 hello all, If we were to create something like an online archive of art lists and other discussion/community forum communications, how would we include blogs like nastynets? They move way beyond the text format. Any ideas? I also have an addition to Mez' list of lists, the spam art list run by Mindaugas Gapsevicius aka Mi_Ga. I love how he made the contents of the archive visible as a sort of slide show. http://www.o-o.lt/asco-o/ See also my interview with him. He did not realize what it meant to be interviewed at the time, and was a bit sorry he had given such bold answers. I think it is quite funny though: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00058.html Simon Bigss wrote: "I have Rhizome posts going back to April 6, 1996 " Ah, 1996! Of course. Mark Tribe gave me a flyer of the Rhizome list at DEAF '95. :-) Thanks! J * 6.0 <nettime> nettime as idea brian carroll nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:33:35 -0500 * is it possible that 'ideas' that are now institutionalized are part of the problem, in that they do not lend them- selves to building up shared views, and instead dividing ideas into categories, which narrows down potentials for building greater knowledge/understanding thru discourse? (i.e. maybe the thinking/conceptualization is rather weak for and detached from the actual situations, and that *silence* may be a testament to irrelevancy/inadequacy of academic systems of thought to engage situations as they now exist. and thus this could be an indictment of, say, theory itself?) * years ago i proposed Nettime as if a medium, by which to take on the New York Times, and would add that with all the tech/computer skills, the Listserv model itself should be hacked and modified and expanded to experiment with the _list as a functioning idea, by which to allow discourses to occur beyond the original designs, such as loops in which offlist discussions may still live, (go on), in the archives as live events, even if not on list, such as tying a BBS or RSS comments feed in with the List, whatever dimensions could be woven (that deal with technology assisting the content, and not simply becoming the content itself, meaningless. this is what i do not understand about the whole situation: there is probably more diverse talent on this list in terms of culture, knowledge, geography, social awareness, technology and yet there seems to be difficulty in sharing a focus or what is actually of greater value, to the larger organism of nettime. -- why, with all this potential is the list itself as a mechanism not a shared focus by which to transform this situation and not be reliant on the default configurations -- or, for instance, why is it that the issues of philosophy cannot become a focus by which to figure out a way to gain a shared ground by which to build up relations between the various systems of thought, by more than linking to websites or projects, and instead get into these dynamics, on list and in the list as a machinery, in which these issues could in/form the shape of nettime itself? it would seem it has to do with what is seen as important and how it is approached: in terms of ideas, nettime itself is itself an idea that seems to be passed over, and is said to limit other ideas, yet maybe it is more complex and more simple than this. maybe it is that the 'project' has yet to be nettime itself, as a larger idea, by which to focus shared action on building up a better medium for the things people want to do, via listservs, via e-mail (including attaching small graphic/diagrams so as to communicate ideas, literally, inaccessible without images, which could and would require moderation, image server, etc). * maybe what is most troubling is that nettime is standing still, and has not evolved as a medium all that much, when there is all the potential for taking it on as a shared project, technical, cultural, social, etc. and making it into something that has yet to exist, and that is DiY from the networks and the ground-up. maybe nettime risks not surviving because it does not know what it is adapting to, or this is not even a question, and that the assumption that its content (discourse) is somehow going to save it may be mistaken-- that its content may be part of the reason it is dying: the cause of its deterioration, looking into the mirror of the vital lack of insight bred in Universities today with regard to how things are actually working, even. that is, the mental modeling may be insufficient, and yet the nettime-model does not necessarily have to rely on failures of ideology, for its own development. it could challenge the institutionalization of methods and forms of inquiry, linearism, all the stuff that is critiqued, and actually experiment and go into questioning mode of the assumptions that are propping up this wasteland of imagination, and bring it all back down to earth, by making the list real, making it relevant, based in common sense and peer review and checks and balances of ideas, as a public forum, which redefines the very questions that all the expertise supposedly existing, fails to account for. that is, relevance, realism, idealism, action, shared agendas. maybe it is psychological, even, a predisposition, based upon academic assumptions, sacred cows, in need of slaughtering. bc architecture, education, electromagnetism http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/ 6.1 RE: <nettime> nettime as idea Nicholas Ruiz nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:08 -0400 Awesome--a nice start would be to de-moderate the list; that is, remove the intelligentsia filters, moderation and so on, no? NRIII Nicholas Ruiz III ABD/GTA Interdisciplinary Program in the Humanities --Florida State University-- Editor, Kritikos http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~nr03/ -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-request {AT} bbs.thing.net [mailto:nettime-l-request {AT} bbs.thing.net] On Behalf Of brian carroll Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:34 PM To: nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net Subject: <nettime> nettime as idea * is it possible that 'ideas' that are now institutionalized <...> 6.2 RE: <nettime> nettime as idea Felix Stalder nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:38:51 +0200 Hi everyone, sorry for my previous post, it went out without being finished. What I wanted to say was that many of the themes that critical net.culture talked about 10 years ago are now mainstream. They are now playing themselves out on a scale far beyond 'net.culture', indeed, they have become culture, without any pre-fix. If that amounts to winning or losing is besides the point. In some ways, it reminds me a bit of the 1968 movements which also transformed daily life (at least in the West), but as the world around them shifted, with consequences very different from what they intended. Again, if they lost or won, is does not really matter. The world is a different place now. For most of the actors of the early net.culture, this meant either late professionalizing or early retirement. Nettime as a project did not so much professionalize as specialize. It exchanged scope for focus which has moved it a bit closer to academic culture, which is also characterized by that trade-off. But anyone who really knows academia, and the texts it produces (which I personally appreciate), will also recognize how far nettime still is from that. Its scope broader, its style sharper. Caroline Nevejan <nevejan {AT} xs4all.nl>: > Critiqing others for having done 'stuff', aging and moving on in > life, I find rather uninteresting. I get interested when I hear what > you like to do yourself. I agree, on many levels, nettime works quite well, so there is not an urgent need to change something. But, this does not mean it cannot be improved. Sure it can. But to do that, we need concrete ideas, what would you, personally, individually, like to see in nettime, and how do you put up the resources to do it? The easiest thing is to do it yourself. Silvan Zurbueck did that when he wanted an rss feed for nettime, he took the feed, pumped into a blog, and now there is an rss feed. [1] Tobias van Veen did that when he wanted to hold a nettime meeting in NA, and now we had it. Great. They had an idea, they figured out a way of doing it (by doing it themselves and roping in others to contribute). This is how things work, not by telling others what they should or should not do. The same goes for the various nettime lists in other languages. People came up with the idea of doing something, and they are doing it. Most of the people on this list are not aware of that, because these lists are in languages few of us speak. [1] http://nettime.freeflux.net, http://nettime-ann.freeflux.net/ Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck {AT} transmediale.de>: > finally, if you are unhappy with the list, be aware that 'the list', > i.e. nettime, is what gets posted. of course, moderation plays a > role in this. but the greater role is played by the things that get > written and sent, or not. if certain discussions are not happening, > it is because people are not writing their opinions. Again, I agree. Moderation is a non-issue, a red-herring. Even if the technical set-up of an email list (conceived at a time when ICT had much less social intelligence built in that it as at times today) lends itself to believing the otherwise. And it's not that Ted and I are turning away the masses who want to do his kind of work. In fact, nobody ever volunteers. N0b0dy, that's with two zeros. We occasionally ask people who are contributing interesting material to the list if they want to moderate, and the answer has always been 'Thank you for asking, but I really do not have the time.' There is one exception. Nettime-ann. Here, four people -- Mason Dixon, Tulpje Tulp, Tsila Hassine, and Hannah Davenport -- responded to an open call what to do with the announcements, and are now running this as their own project, connected to the main list by name and lose but friendly cooperation. They are doing a great, if unglamorous, job. Over the years, we experimented with various set-ups, most importantly dividing the list into two feeds, the standard moderated one and an non-moderated one, called nettime-bold. The interested in the second channel was small from the beginning, and waned entirely shortly after. The levels of spam and self-promotion seem to be tiring for everyone but the self-promoters. After we had to start manually removing posts from the nettime-bold archive, because people entirely unrelated to the list were accused -- with their names and telephone numbers -- of being pedophiles and sent us harrowing stories how this ruined their lives, because googling their names brought up these posts (google loves nettime and ranks its posts often very high up) we decided that this was not the resource we wanted to provide. When we shut-down the list, nobody seemed to notice. So, if anyone feels like moderating -- near daily work, over a long period of time -- and knows how to use an email program on a unix shell (perferably mutt), please step forward. If you like to do that kind of work, it's actually rewarding, and, depending on your frame of reference, a meaningful contribution to the progress of humanity. Felix ----http://felix.openflows.org------------------------------ out now: *|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society. Polity, 2006 *|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed. Futura/Revolver, 2005 6.3 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea roberta buiani nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:53:30 +0200 On 9-Jun-06, at 10:38 AM, Felix Stalder wrote: > > I agree, on many levels, nettime works quite well, so there is not an > urgent need to change something. But, this does not mean it cannot be > improved. Sure it can. But to do that, we need concrete ideas, what > would you, personally, individually, like to see in nettime, and how > do you put up the resources to do it? The easiest thing is to do it > yourself. Silvan Zurbueck did that when he wanted an rss feed for > nettime, he took the feed, pumped into a blog, and now there is an rss > feed. [1] Tobias van Veen did that when he wanted to hold a nettime > meeting in NA, and now we had it. Great. They had an idea, they > figured out a way of doing it (by doing it themselves and roping in > others to contribute). This is how things work, not by telling others > what they should or should not do. The same goes for the various > nettime lists in other languages. People came up with the idea of > doing something, and they are doing it. Most of the people on this > list are not aware of that, because these lists are in languages few > of us speak. yes, nettime works well, but it works better in these occasions (I think I've seen somebody say "it turns to itself"). isn't this a sign that maybe not only the list, but also the way we deal with it need to be revamped? and that maybe it should not be about reflection of what has already happened but about something that could happen? individual initiatives are always welcome, but if the initiative is left to a few individuals, what would the results be? NNA was not very well attended (we were a bunch of people mainly form montreal, toronto and a few courageous from NY), the issues touched were nothing but a very small portion of what could have been achieved with the help and the support of a larger and more diverse crowd. am I too idealistic to hope for the best possible outcomes? maybe there were no questions people were asked to reply to? (and here it was probably up to everybody to put items on the table, not just to the organizers who did more than enough, shame on me that didn't think about it before). roberta 6.4 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea Heiko Recktenwald nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:17:24 +0200 Well, Felix Stalder wrote: > > [1] http://nettime.freeflux.net, http://nettime-ann.freeflux.net/ PopoonDBException Message: MDB2 Error: unknown error Code: userInfo: [Last query: SELECT blogposts.post_uri,blogposts.id, blogposts.blog_id, blogposts.post_title, blogposts.post_uri, blogposts.post_content, blogposts.post_content_extended, blogposts.post_info, blogposts.post_status, blogposts.post_guid_version, unix_timestamp(blogposts.changed) as lastmodified, DATE_FORMAT(DATE_ADD(blogposts.post_date, INTERVAL 7200 SECOND), "%d.%m.%Y %H:%i") as post_date, unix_timestamp(blogposts.post_date) as unixtime, blogposts.post_expires as expires, blogposts.post_comment_mode, DATE_FORMAT(blogposts.post_date, "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%i:%SZ") as post_date_iso, blogposts.post_author, count(blogcomments.id) as comment_count, unix_timestamp(max(blogcomments.changed)) as comment_lastmodified from nettime_freeflux_net_blogposts as blogposts left join nettime_freeflux_net_blogcomments as blogcomments on blogposts.id = blogcomments.comment_posts_id and blogcomments.comment_status = 1 where blogposts.id = "1462" and blogposts.blog_id = "1" group by blogposts.id ] [Native code: 1016] [Native message: Can't open file: 'nettime_freeflux_net_blogcomments.MYI' (errno: 145)] In File [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/plugins/blog.php Line 452 stacktrace #0 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/plugins/blog.php(637): bx_plugins_blog->getBlogPostData('1462', '/blog/', false) #1 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/plugins/blog.php(340): bx_plugins_blog->getBlogPosts(Object(MDB2_BufferedResult_mysql), '/blog/', false) #2 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/collection.php(149): bx_plugins_blog->getContentById('/blog/', 'index') #3 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/collection.php(115): bx_collection->getContentByPluginMap(Array) #4 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/popoon/components/generators/bxcms.php(77): bx_collection->getContentByRequest('index', 'html') #5 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/tmp/_var_www_freeflux_cms1.4_sitemap_sitemap.xml(1335): popoon_components_generators_bxcms->DomStart(Object(DOMDocument)) #6 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/sitemap.php(178): include('/var/www/freefl...') #7 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/sitemap.php(164): popoon_sitemap->runSitemap('./tmp/_var_www_...') #8 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/popoon.php(182): popoon_sitemap->__construct('/var/www/freefl...', 'index.html', Object(bx_config)) #9 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/popoon.php(160): popoon->run('/var/www/freefl...', 'index.html', Object(bx_config)) #10 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/index.php(31): popoon->__construct('/var/www/freefl...', 'index.html', Object(bx_config)) #11 {main} Error... more text here Florian Cramer? I think we both once met in real live as well, is organising real life events anybodys property? Nettime as a label, H. 6.5 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea Newmedia nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:41:57 EDT Roberta: When nettime was young, it largely revolved around events. Not ideas. Events. The list was often a discussion of events, publishing of "papers" that were given at events, reports about events, quarrels that took place at events, planning for events. Events were at the center of nettime's life back then. The Metaforum series was central (okay Zentral) to the early growth and excitement of nettime. Indeed, as the history books tell us, nettime was initially formed at an event -- Venice Biennale 1995. These events were planned. Carefully. Then, of course, these events took on their own life as all good events must do. I was introduced to nettime in an email inviting me to come to Metaforum III (October 1996). A plane ticket was offered (fund-raised from a local businessman who wanted some free advice from me) and a "keynote" speech slot was promised. I didn't know Diana, Pit, Geert and Janos when I was contacted. They found me on the net (partly because I "attacked" John Perry Barlow, who had keynoted Metaforum II) and apparently thought that I would say something that would help their event. Hopefully it did. When I got on the plane, there was Eric Davis ("TechGnosis") sitting next to me. He was also invited. We'd never met. So was Manuel Delanda. We also never met. Arthur Kroker was invited but couldn't attend. Likewise for many others. The night before my "speech," I went to dinner with the organizers to go over my presentation. We decided to change some things to directly "confront" some other topics that would also be discussed and to make sure that everything would be lively and challenging. Events are hard work. Especially if you want to throw together some interesting people so that sparks will fly -- in a semi-controlled but tension-filled fashion. Unfortunately (or not according to your perspective), these events were viewed as in conflict with the aggressive efforts by the Soros group to build its own "network" -- recalling that early nettime was highly engaged in bringing people from the "East" (i.e. former communist Eastern Europe) into contact with people from the West -- which inevitably involved many of the same people as nettime. I've been told that it was communicated to some nettimers that they could expect no funding from Soros etal -- remember that the Soros group was then among the only job sources in the territory -- if there was another Metaforum event. For whatever reasons, there were no more. Instead, the Soros organization in Ljubljana (Slovenia) hosted the "final" nettime event -- Beauty and the East -- in May 1997. Once again there were various invited speakers. Peter Lamborn Wilson (aka Hakim Bey) and David Bennehum, among others. Travel expenses were paid and so forth. Nightclubs were rented. Drinks were provided. There was plenty of excitement in the air (and some smoke as I recall.) For the record, Ted Byfield had "given up" on nettime around then. I made a contribution and helped to convince him to come to Ljublana. The rest is, er, not quite (public) history -- yet. I suspect the reason why there has been such an outflowing of commentary about "nettime" (on nettime) in the past week (and the "Ted connection") is simply because there was recently another nettime event. After all these years. If you wish to build something -- call it nettime? -- then you will have to organize some events. The better you organize them, the better you mix things up, the better you get people excited, the better you *plan* and *execute* -- then the better will your results inevitably be. Oh yeah, I came back from "Beast" very excited about where this was all going. Because of the train strike -- which prevented travelling directly from Slovenia to Austria, forcing Ted, David and me to take a train to Germany first -- none of us attended the post-conference ZK meeting. We did however get to stay in the Hotel Orient (as I recall, none of us knew it was already famous due to Ken Anger's 1995 "Love's Last Lament") in Vienna. I suspect that we missed out on something important at that post-event planning session. Perhaps that's where the future of nettime was debated. There were no more major public events. I was involved in organizing two things following that -- Technorealism (which was largely stillborn, when Daddy Warbucks showed up) and the Non-Linear Circle (a "salon" that I hosted in my loft once-a-month for two years, 1998-2000.) As I posted over the years in various ways, the NET is giant surveillance device. Indeed, I believe that it was designed as such by the Pentagon. When I started getting subscribers from Bulgaria on the NLC list (hosted right alongside nettime), I started to wonder exactly who was "tracking" our activities. Of course, this isn't to say that "watchers" can't show up at events -- indeed, the NYPD "Red Squad" sent someone to actively participate in the NLC -- but so much of what happens at events is, well, "private." I'm a big believer in events. I hope that there are some more that I'm privileged to participate in -- make it some good ones! Best, Mark Stahlman New York City 6.6 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea John Young nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:32:56 -0700 NYC is awash in terrorism profits -- stock market, vulture capitalism, classified academic studies, lucrative spying beyond anything ever experienced in the capital of world espionage and electronic surveillance, the NYC Red Squad ballooned into a wannabe CIA, the mayor richer than Soros and snorting the coke of leading the free world ambition -- so why not fuck with the celebrity intellectual fashionista party scene here. Thousands of bright youngs and olds are ready to pimp-whore their plagiarisms here as on the hustings, and there's no business like techno-blow business, no insult meant toward the weariers pretty well burned out from exporting information confucianism around the globe, well, to bilderburgers. Weird that NYC never seemed to get the point of the cyber-liberty run up and run down, so out of it the movement was understood only as another carny to be imitated. Only the fringes of the city's main action -- stealing and robbing -- got in on the small beans and that by getting deeper in debt. A small event in NYC is impossible, rather there are so many none can be noticed except as tiny ads stuck above toilet paper dispensers by pr agents of the downtrodden, which remains the leading profession of cultural unaffiliateds forever drunk on autodidactism. Two people lunching interviewing each other, imagining one is the subject. Ted Byfield creates events just by being there, I've seen flocks of hangers-on seeking his magic. 6.7 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea Geert Lovink nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:40:01 +0200 Felix Stalder writes: On 9 Jun 2006, at 10:38 AM, Felix Stalder wrote: > I agree, on many levels, nettime works quite well, so there is not an > urgent need to change something. But, this does not mean it cannot be > improved. Sure it can. But to do that, we need concrete ideas, what > would you, personally, individually, like to see in nettime, and how > do you put up the resources to do it? The easiest thing is to do it > yourself. Yourself, right. OK, but why are Felix and Ted excluded from this? Why is it such a hilarious idea that cannot be debated that both, after seven or more years, now step down and hand over the paswords to an interim group or some other group that will sort out who will do the moderation next? Why is rotation of the moderation of nettime-l not a constructive, concrete proposal? Another concrete proposal I have is to close down nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net and take another address, in close collaboration with The Thing. It would at least temporarily take away some of spam problems. Yours, Geert 6.8 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea A. G-C nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:57:13 +0200 Sorry of my very special notorious Francophone Anglophone;-) but if we can speak in French on Empyre from time to time, here it is not possible in spite of one aspect of the information on nettime-list in the homepage nettime.org. I can't speak on the "net(...)" for the most of "(...)time" and specially since more of a year (can be two years). But of the prime history of nettime-l by knowledge I can see how and what, even not from my practice from one hand; anyway my proper emails not being resent as well as I am not from academics even not as self academic, as more I do mot master Anglophone languages. At last : I'm afraid that I would present all the characters that being considered here as "babies", so "little", so "small" by a way appearing that it would not be possible to think or Anglophone even being myself a thing but not a system. I have discovered a sort of integrated xenophobia or corporatism (or political line masked by corporatism that you can call of a part tribute to academic) that I could not imagine, as old I am as I cannot see before in the side of activism. More impossible to exist in a margin of the community that is exactly the question of "otherness", of the welcome "other" as common human of political exchange in critical fields. My own regard in matter of critical theory (and of the criticism of representative theory nowadays) is all on the other. (but anyone can have other choice, I can respect it if it does not disallow me to exist ? a radical or critical theory in Politics by these days could be contained inside of a really simply ( short ) sentence : by this way I mean of RSS both senses of the feed. Regarding the hard rock answer from any one to Geert about the unpossible claiming of nettime foundation it stays that I want to notice from my part that this foundation is exactly the abstract purpose to inform the future subscribers of the list in both and relative to each other abstracts: " <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. 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. <nettime> is slightly moderated. history: the formation of the nettime group goes back to spring 1995. A first meeting called <nettime> was organized in june 1995, at the Venice Bienale, as a part of the Club Berlin event. The list itself took off in the fall. A first compilation on paper appeared in January 1996, at the second Next Five Minutes events (the so-called ZKP series). The list organized its own conference in Ljubljana in May 1997, called 'The Beauty and the East'. A 556 pages nettime anthology came out in 1999: Readme! Ascii Culture and the Revenge of Knowledge. Autonomedia: New York (ISBN: 1570270899). " ===> what stays of it right now? while people were/(are still?) following to subscribe believing this multi dialectical symbolic typo-arborescence integrating life, technology, hypermedia, social utopia, history, and Arts, the opening of the world through the opening of the sources, through progressive nettime installation since 1995 till 1999? just clicking "info" of "nettime-l" at http://www.nettime.org/ http://www.nettime.org/info.html Of which academism or theory are you discussing or power linked to reductionism view whatever being the fields you moderate? But certainly not from the point of view of the changing time. It is a new morning, that one of the security and current war as mean instead of politics and critical political economy. They are the mean of the global power itself to destroy all other reality. Taking the same weapons as virtual solution of the critical ideas and practices it cannot be the good solution under my view. But the changing time as reflecting subject of the common. What have changed since 1999? Web, society, political power, education, emigration and so on... As global as singular or local? But please not denying of this history or you will never know of your own memory while you abusively pretend to hold it to the largest common tribute. >From this point of view, I think that Geert's provocation on closing the list to have it reborning from this new time, it is really interesting as logical activist attitude happening in real time of the mails against misunderstanding and mortification. It is a defy to be able in telling or analyzing of the changes: web transformations, global and local multi dialectical security, political, social and cultural environments, objectives, subjects, codes, means... Even connection / disconnection. And more of the public archives regarding the new laws of copyright facing the quote and facing spam that is quite a new situation ( all different was the time of having to open web information to the largest web ). May be not of a real conclusion of the list but a real mean to keep it safe from all its external and internal enclosures. The question of the death of the list it is not of the decision to close it ( even it would be or not be closed at last ) it is of the end as living solution to create again ( the same as musics front of the repetitive rythmics which get it progressing, there is a moment where the composition has to finish with the rythm to have the form of the end as event, then everything is ready to the next creation ). Re borning situation of creating among the others is not a death, this is life. The end of meta culture at the moment the risk is that becoming meta meta culture it would have lost all its critical social roots to an exclusive event of abstracted power ( that would be a no event ;-) it is a not the death of the things, all the contrary. Can be re borning from itself in the same place and under the same address or not, whatever the browser to support it. I 6.9 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea David Garcia nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:39:17 +0200 On Jun 11, 2006, at 5:57 PM, A. G-C wrote: > From this point of view, I think that Geert's provocation on closing > the list to have it reborning from this new time, it is really > interesting as logical activist attitude happening in real time of > the mails against misunderstanding and mortification... > Re borning situation of creating among the others is not a death, > this is life. It was great to hear guibertc's Anglo/Francophone voice and be reminded of something that Mckensie Wark said on this list long ago (very rough quote from memory) that these days english does not belong to any one (I would add; least of all the english). This post also has something of the euphoria for a culture of continuous migration accompanied by the perpetual possibility of closure ("not a death, this is life") as a measure of integrity. Other less inspiring postings on this thread have talked airily "about slaughtering of sacred cows" etc These avant garde (Fluxes like) rituals or 'tactics' in which ephemerality is taken as an emblem of life and authenticity are assumptions that run deep in our culture. This is particularly true of visual art and as we know from Venice Biennale to Dokumentas the visual arts were a important componant of nettime. But maybe we also have learned (eventually) that the cult of ephemerality is just not enough, that nothing slaughters 'holy cows' more voraciously than the capitalism these movements seek to subvert. The burning question has become how to move on from a "kill your darlings" culture without relinquishing the articulations of freedom we value (sometimes presented as part of the 'precarity' discussion). How to achieve sustainability without institutionalisation (or professionalisation). The fact that we are arguing (and fighting) 11 years after its birth shows that something in nettime (as it exists now) is worth struggling over. It suggests that nettime has found away to address the questions posed above, in fact and action as well as theory. The list has its ups and downs but is clearly very much alive and (as Felix pointed out) it has not professionalised or institutionalised. It is my belief that we owe this part of nettime's achievement is owed in large part to the current moderators. Not only to the years of quiet methodical un-glamerous work but also the courage to put up a fight when necessary! This is not the first time that closure has been argued for. In the past there are those who have argued strenuously to close the list and move on in which we would now be talking in the past tense. The moderators put up a fight and kept the platform we are now arguing on open. Whatever differences there may be the years invested in nurturing this space, with generosity and finesse, should (in my view) be too easily disrespected. I am not arguing that moderators, and their position can not be questioned. But what I am saying is tokenistic expressions of gratitude "great job guys, time to move on..bye". Are shallow and disrespectful in the extreme. And more importantly fail to engage with an important aspect of the list's achievement. I would argue that any movement for radical change should be carried out in close collaboration with the moderators and should take a very different approach and tone from some of the peremptory notifications we have seen on this thread. And above all they should seek to work imaginatively with the fact that nettime has found a powerful way of addressing our most pressing issue; sustainability without institutionalisation. Respect David Garcia 6.10 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea Michael Benson nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:10 +0200 I haven't posted to nettime in what a Slovene friend would no doubt call "the age of a dog," but read it quite regularly and still consider it a kind of ongoing online cornerstone, and have to say that my vote (be it worthless for the above reasons, or not), is in kinship with David Garcia's eloquent mail today. In my experience when something's really very definitively _not_ broken -- and not broken for the good reason that some few people have made damn sure that it's in a good state of repair -- then "fixing" it runs the real risk of breaking it. So why do that? In other words, a proposal can be concrete without being constructive, and (as Garcia says) can also seem disrespectful and denying of achievement. Felix Stalder writes of personal abuse as being part of the job, and part of the problem in general with work, be it for free (and let's recognize how hard _that_ is in super-streamlined 21st century hypercapitalism) or for money, is that there's always a given quantity of thoughtless abuse that has to be endured, while praise is (or seems) comparatively rare. Nettime's excellent ongoing health, it has to be said, is due to its contributors but also its moderators. Cheers from wind-swept Ljubljana, where the East has moved East (but Beauty lives on). Michael Benson 6.11 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea A. G-C nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:12:41 +0200 Dear David, At the same time I am touched that you celebrate my return, by an ironical and pleasant version of the return of singular insane or some accidental dust, but I am as more amazed as you told of respectable or unrespectable mean, by how you can link it to Ken whom has nothing to do in this debate where he could take a part if he would hope ? but obviously not ?:) so please, may be it is simple to leave the indirect voice of Ken in this debate. Or his proper voice ad coming. I do not want contaminate Ken, the same as he would not contaminate me. We are diverse but solider autonomies. Being both pride. Proselytism is not exactly our friendship mode, but critical exchange. I trust him as friend in our differences recognizing of what we have in Partage that is of free positive ( freedom ) creation and ethically trusting together in a cognitive disposition. And I am really working a lot to success in a difficult work from several sides as tribute to his Hacker that only friendship from his part can support so long waiting for FR emergence next Autumn 2006 ( at last ). At the moment you evoke him I want to quote his last interactive work in the institute future of the book, http://www.futureofthebook.org/ that is simply great critical work organically playing theory instead of theory of the truth ( I do not tell why, immediately not being the subject ), where more is linked a certain blog on religions and gods title "without gods toward an history of disbelief" by Mitchell Stephens, both works being at my view an emergent and free vitality from New York that fascinates me cheerfully. Of a beautiful arrogance from any few in that appears currently missing here and there in the English-speaking streams of the no thematic lists of which I am a subscriber. GAM3R 7H30RY http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/ I am not impressed by contaminations, old use that I could approach in the former times as a mean of post modern Marxist Leninist organizations being bureaucratic power themselves, -with a blind view, a deaf discourse and making dumb the voice ( even the vote) of the base- where I transited very fast not being from my part an adept of the hierarchic cup of tea (but from a South tradition, of the voice and of the critical feeling ) my cup of tee, in the former times As I was educated among a psychiatrist clinic by my parents as doctors with their patients, your glance does not deprive to me of any dignity to my proper eyes, being exactly the site from which I learnt that "other" was so strange but so attractive so it is my richness nowadays to be able in discovery whatever the generation and the sexes, to autonomy and self organization. >From my part I have entered very late the debate since the beginning ( regarding Montreal ) thanks the very special occasion of reopening the list to critical diverse point of views. But I see how hardly it can be to whom is a following subject of otherness such as not being considered able to debate both together with the little aristocratic and academic but community having the large list in mastering. I mean of hierarchy and advantages over passing the question of the language BUT having the language as media privilege.. I prefer the part of Geert, cannot be my particular friend, even sometimes puritans at my view but never "integrist" and always straight and punctual in matter of criticism of the web community in real vision of the practice, thinking from his experiences of common, not from the part of a lobby nor from the part of a globalizing critical party (may be yes may be not but this is not the public obvious part of his criticism to tribute others); more, he is nearest than every one from nettime ? as well as outsider lists of nettime.org ? as thinker of the diversity of the common; to the part of self-organization as common diversity, from local self-organization till federal self-organization being powerful: that is not exactly the power. That is really which I hope better to criticize EU, at the time the power abolish the self decision, can be of Art, can be of the social organizations... Can be more of what you call theory of which I think myself that the time of theory is over passed by the general time of organic essay whatever the field ( another regime of theory in essay regarding the opposition between Hegel and Hölderlin about philosophy and poetry that was never solved, just a divide before ). At the moment the criticism of political economy has lost the precious symbolic pact of relationship of means in social reports of production (specially capitalism having cut its own link with the social pact of production), something new has to appear of we'll run in repetitive dying as from a traumatic situation to leave getting larger and larger the wide to the total power (Jarry says: "l'ascension du vide par la périphérie" that represents every part even that one of power ? taking the power from every and in every part ). But having a come back to the purpose, please let us note which changes since Geert has left the moderation of the list : Internet ? code sources and Free sources Of Web2 Arts Post productive society Of security Of browser of lists Of spams Global organizations and alter global organizations And so on... Please why it is not possible to have a discussion on that point. Is it a supposed consensus to a political line here that forbid to approach this sort of debate? And to tribute the best of the list: why not a larger moderation as suggest it Geert? (Be quite: I do not beg my part in it:) 6.12 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea John Young nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:29:44 -0700 Who has resisted the easy blaming of one's familiars when rejected or defeated by the world. Come home from a bad day being kicked by the boss to kick the dog, the kids, the cowering mate, reign dictatorially for a moment recounting shopworn grievances against those boringly dominatable by recitation of what went wrongs years ago, to avoid remembering the insults heaped today. Yes, blame your parents, your college, your professors, your students, your one-time best friends for letting you down after setting you up with barely deserved praise. Woe, whoa, now, get off your ass, forgo raging at the tube, the party in power, the dimbulb who got the job purpose-built for you, and go for a run, working a day or week or month for something other than your idiot ambition to be somebody. Being somebody was merely a drug fed to you to get you past suicidal adolescence and certainty of worthlessness, to get you into and out of military service, the university, the years plugging away at a dying profession battling the communists or the capitalists or the environmental depredators, or white males, or anybody else not telling you what a loss for humanity you display. If only you'd been this or that, the voices tell you day in and day out, if your delivery was even slightly approximate to your promise, and by the way how about paying the money you owe me, the love you now withhold as if it never stank of cruelty and deception. Finally, get up on soapbox for the unwashed, preferrably somebody else's, yours ineptly constructed collapsed years ago, and orate the narcissistic heathens like yourself. CIA/MI6/BND/KGB got your number with that narcotic of cheap-ticket piddling egotism. Soros the bagman, following Ford, Rockefeller, shit, even the filthy cold war armaments enriched Yerps. 6.13 Re: <nettime> nettime as idea brian carroll nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:56:18 -0500 i don't know, i find it confusing after a period of years in trying to engages ideas on nettime as a supposedly public forum, consisting of 'intellectuals' if not 'the intelligentsia' to have found so many problems with ideas themselves, in dealing with ideas beyond ideologies. some may call this abuse, though after years of having facts, reasoning, truth, empirical reasoning, 'proof', refutation of 'theory', simply ignored as the status quo of the existing academic paradigm churns on, is, to me, frustrating, insulting, and without integrity in terms of ideas, and philosophies which purport to serve ideas, yet rather seem to be serving the people serving themselves instead. this lack of integrity of ideas should not be respected, it should be rejected and it is only accepted as the status quo because it is how people are making their living, however meagerly. yet in terms of ideas related to 'truth' or 'reality' this very compromise makes distortions and bias that lead up to hypocrisy at the level of ideas, reasoning, and the inability to engage things as they more actually are, not as they are wished or fantasized or believed by faith of consensus. this is not a personal issue, it is a fact of living in this era, which is itself totally failing, systematically. and to deal with this failure also necessitates taking account of how it is made to occur. education being quite 'critical' to how ideas are made into actions which, oddly enough, is in a mode of mass production by which ideas unfit for the existing environment are produced anyway, in surfeit, making its own demands regardless of true worth, need, or value as to what is being sold, versus the actual goods. for instance, 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum, it relates to how ideas can or cannot deal with the dynamics related to 9/11, including in Universities where there are supposedly people who have some superior sense about all this - yet remain totally and absolutely silent with regard to insight as to what is now going on. in any practical sense, including their own role in creating this situation. thus, the issue of 'objectivism' grounded in empirical knowledge with peer review-- that is, checks and balances on the reasoning of an argument, with regard to facts and logic-- that is what nettime could function as, if it were in the tradition of philosophy and not the hollow fraud that is theory today, that cannot stand as an argument yet continues anyway, regardless, because it can-- because it is what is being 'professed' and institutionalized as a mode of engaging ideas. yet, the assumptions underneath this is detached from a greater reality, physical fact, experiment, and substantive peer review which could _disprove any ideas, based on being theses, which are instead more hypothetical and interesting in that, yet assume more dictatorial powers of making laws by thinking itself, -- i.e. i think it, i reason it, therefore, it is true, relatively speaking, of course. yet, with this gambit of the pyramid-scheming the thinking self, it has in effect created an environment where ideas have turned into a game, and the ruling ideology is the theory regime, as it now stands, which is _beyond any tangible critical review, which would ground ideas in a shared space of knowledge, facts, truth, and reason-- and instead becomes a theology of ideas, of faith and belief in a certain set of ideas with boundaries, limits, etc. in other words, closed ideas, boundaries (borders) which, while one may speak against these things in rhetoric, are actually the things which sustain the current inauthentic, disingenuous, and uncritical extension of ideology that is based in ideas that were once answered and never to be questioned again-- because of some deal with the devil (institutions, educational systems) which enable the shell game to continue, because poking at that beast would hurt one's self, no? abuse, then, maybe, to have to consider that there may be natural conflicts in the individuals who profess themselves cool thinkers about things, while slinging constant epithets at ideas, from what amounts to ideological positions that remain unquestioned and part of a massive group think that is the status-quo. even this is understandable, and can be accommodated, yet what this is is also a fundamental corruption of ideas, in academia, in the 'professional' thinking class, (sic) which is unable to actively engage ideas outside of the particular ideological constructs that protect and defend the mindset-- which cannot be placed under review. that is, the observer cannot become the observation, which is a pre-scientific point of view, which is seen in the lack of material proof for ideas, which can wax on about anything, without much regard to substantive views which add up to more than one person's point of view alone. that is, empirical knowledge which builds and spans people and ideas, connects and does not simply divide, conquer, and monopolize ideas in the form of ideologies which are institutionalized by peers, 'professed' and extended as 'the system' which is what it is today: a failure which is incapable of dealing with the existing situation. while the psychological aspect may be delusional if not self- delusional, schizophrenic even, this is not to be considered in terms of those doing the observations, only 'others' outside of this view. the abuse hurled at these others, from such points on high (in the networked pantheon) is truly annoying, yet moreso, banal, boring, tedious, and without merit in terms of ideas themselves and only personas, peer pressure, cliques, and the herd mentality that is more scared than anything. because the ideas cannot stand - and some know it. and this cannot be defended. and thus it calls into question the grand sweeping claims of theorists and 'intellectuals' who say this and that about big things and ideas, which really exists without any accountability whatsoever. what is the price of being wrong today? nothing. not at thing. you get promoted or go on to become an expert at it. as long as you can pay to play. power, not truth, defining what is supposedly the more real reality, etc. even if it is only virtual, hyped, a bubble culture and bubble intellectualism that is ungrounded. and as such, the slightest disturbance threatens the whole of this overarching ideology which is itself the problem of why things are the way they are, and the status quo in the educational system has something significant to do with this, not the least being its philosophy is completely devoid of common sense, truth, logic, reasoning, debate, peer review, outside of a controlled environment. this in effect 'privatizes' ideas, in a marketplace which can be cornered, in academics. it is to say that much if not most of what is going on, online and in states, today, is based in this inherited privatization of ideas, which is now the base operation (status quo of ideology) -- and that private language (theory, say), private identities, private reasoning and logic are all the basis for what is next to occur: capitalizing on this situation for one's own benefit, fuck the truth and fuck the others. so, whatever delusional utopia one may believe themselves pursing is by and large happening in a context of private thinkers who are doing all the things they rail against, in large-scale economic systems- except it is happening in ideas, in educational systems-- and it is abysmal and without soul, merit, or insight into the actual issues and actual responses required, outside the narrow and limiting approach -- yet, like true believers, none of this can be brought under question -- no matter if one's flag is anarchism or libertarian, social democrat or whatnot, (queer, atheist, etc) that this is part of the private capitalism of the individual, as governed as a state of affairs, in terms of thinking because it brings with it direct contradiction between the facts and truth and what is being said and 'represented' and 'believed' within such an environment which, as stated, is without consequence for saying one thing and doing another. this is a consequence of larger issues having to do with relativism in ideas, and this privatization as being a devolution of a once- public system that could not adapt, and instead disintegrated over the last 200 years (in the .US, for example, in the constitution) by which definitions can mutate from representing a higher ideal (where mankind is presumed equated with humankind) to one where this dynamic is replaced by a lesser version (this vagueness leading corporations on the path to citizenship, and representation, in what has evolved into a corporate dictatorship today). so, while one may call into question the points of view which 'profess' universalism via 'the magic of theory', it is without greater empirical truth, in the sense of a sharing of facts and reasoning that goes beyond this privatization of ideas, which instead functions as ideology. it is pyramid building because, if there is a peer group (of like minded theorists, privatized thinkers) there is a private empire/empricism which can grow, while it excludes actual 'difference' and all the other keyword 'big ideas' that go into its own justification, as if this is universal representation, when instead it is a bill of goods that are not actually what is being sold, it is a knock-off, rip-off, a cheat lie and steal. so, what about this theft, robbery, in terms of ideas, in a public forum, and dealing with it? it does not exist, so far as it seems in this nettime. it is unnecessary to engage, because it is optional (ah, relativism, 'options', the market, etc). if based in public debate, facts, truth, *accountability* for the theses (ur, theory) and accepting that the basic situation in ideas is that they can be disproved (!!), that this is not necessarily simply abuse-- and instead, squaring ideas with the truth of what exists. if this is not necessary, then nettime as it now seems, is also unnecessary for this is a private list of people who have private ideas who are unable to have public debates and only talk past one another in terms of ideas, which do not build up to anything more than markets of limited views which are fundamentally opposed to a sharing of views, of ideas, and reasoning in an open forum- because it does not function in terms of ideas, and instead, in terms of extending ruling ideology. to question the ideology and reason complex ideas has no effect -- it is out of place if it is to question the underlying assumptions which drive this mechanism, which is itself unintelligent in the larger scales, if not allowing partial knowledge, partial worth, of the relative points of view, yet if they do not share a common structure, it negates the truth of all arguments in a zero sum game. which is what constantly happens. and instead, cultivates only the delusions of egos, which is its own problem in terms of philosophy, because this also acts as a mirror of the limits of viewpoints, where they cannot get beyond, including personal points of view, which may have more to do with social groups and being on the 'inside' (else being ignored, invisible, suspect, conspirator!) -- it is incredulous and pandering to the weakness of this existing social system which is so goddamn hypocritical as to be obscene, intellectually, and it is expected one is just supposed to go along with this flow of things? because that is the way it is, that the strategy is itself not totally fucked up? no words will change this, on this list. no facts, no argument. it is ideology. it is being able to be wrong, partially wrong, partially right. yet words have not been able to accomplish the heavy lifting because the ideology is so complete and the deep-freeze of ideas, so stuck in another age. abuse is ignoring these facts, these dynamics, this absolutely decrepit situation and the total lack of any accountability for being wrong, for having ideas being disproven and ideologies detonated, on list, and yet go on as if living in oblivion, which pretty much accurately describes the situation today. that means, yes, maybe we all are included and each can realize our own limitations, yet there are issues that go beyond ourselves, our egos, our private ideas and agendas, and this is the realm in which philosophies change, where the basic assumptions are tested and transformed, based on reasoning, debate, new views, etc. and attempting such 'rigor' on nettime has been and is futile, because instead it is seen as insulting to the aristocratic system of representation that now reigns. that is, it is a total system, and if this cannot be accounted for in the ideas here, the ideas have little or no merit when claiming to deal with such dimensions, it is only playing around in fictions. and without risk. and without true ability to deal with what is going on, outside of pure ideology which is more complex, demands more, is more humbling, and might crush a good portion of those who profess to not be ideologues and have capitalism also hidden within their genes. this is not to continue to speak past 'nettime as an idea' as if politically uncorrect. it would be to have integrity about ideas, as ideas, and instead, this is nettime as ideology -- moderate it. brian thomas carroll: research-design-development architecture, education, electromagnetism http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/ 6.14 <nettime> RE: nettime as idea J Armitage nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:51:25 +0100 All I think I can say that I have been on nettime for as long as I can remember but, please, will someone change the channel? I can't be the only lurker around here who is BORED TO DEATH with the entrails of nettime, who did what to whom in 1996 etc. If there is one way to kill nettime it is keep posting this self-absorbed prattle for weeks on end. John 6.15 Re: <nettime> RE: nettime as idea David Garcia nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:23:47 +0200 John, I feel double about what you say. Your right and many lists have been destroyed by endless self meta-discussion. On the other hand from time to time it may be needed for at least a little while. To clear the air. And that has something to do with the peculiarity of a list as a social/publishing space. In other words it is not just TV where you can just 'change the channel' neither is it a space for discourse alone it is also a community of sorts and as such has a community memory. Arguing over its meaning may also involve questions of historical fact including personal issues between members of the community. And yes sometimes its boring. But I do not think that these discussions are disconnected to issues of more substance. How we treat each other in our communities of discourse is an important expression (and test) of our politics in practice. Maybe something of the old feminist slogan holds true in this instance: "the personal is political". Best David 6.16 Re: <nettime> RE: nettime as idea Wayne Myers nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:30:19 +0100 On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:51:25 +0100 J Armitage <j.armitage {AT} unn.ac.uk> wrote: > I think I can say that I have been on nettime for as long as I can remember > but, please, will someone change the channel? Yes. Totally. I agree. Entertain me please, damn you. Entertain /me/. With every post. With every topic. If a topic comes up which doesn't interest me, I will write in and complain. Dear BBC, er, Nettime. How dare you presume to have an uninteresting thread. You, who have only had interesting threads since 1896! Please stop discussing this boring topic at once. How dare you attempt to discuss something that I find boring. I mean really. > I can't be the only lurker around here who is BORED TO DEATH with the > entrails of nettime, who did what to whom in 1996 etc. I can't be the only lurker around here who is BORED TO DEATH. But I don't want to unsubscribe just yet either... > If there is one way to kill nettime it is keep posting this self-absorbed > prattle for weeks on end. Oh come on, John. Nettime died years ago. Netcraft confirms it... Cheers, Wayne 6.17 AW: <nettime> RE: nettime as idea Heiko Hansen nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:19:11 +0200 Garcia: >But I do not think that these discussions are disconnected to issues of more >substance. How we treat each other in our communities of discourse is an >important expression (and test) of our politics in practice. I like this problem and I had to think about an interview with Andrea Branzi I recently read: "As always, there is the problem of the environment and the problem of the evironmentalists. These are two separate questions. Personally, I have never met an environmentalist who gave any signs of a concern for humanity, a sense of delicacy toward people (who are an important part of nature)" It might be unnecessarily impossible per se, but what about the idea of style - in activism ... h 7.0 mini CPR, Was Re: <nettime> nettime as idea Gita Hashemi nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:28:33 -0400 At 10:39 AM +0200 6/12/06, David Garcia wrote: >I would argue that any movement for radical change should be carried >out in close collaboration with the moderators and should take a very >different approach and tone from some of the peremptory notifications >we have seen on this thread. And above all they should seek to >work imaginatively with the fact that nettime has found a powerful >way of addressing our most pressing issue; sustainability without >institutionalisation. i agree that the tone of *some* of the exchanges [please, let's not homogenize] has been more self-serving than visionary and imaginative - on this thread and others prompted by the NNA - and that the pronunciations of the "death of nettime" too have been self-perpetuating in the way that the "the death of the author" ultimately has been for its author! respectfully, i would add that the moderators - present and past - have not been outside this dynamic but have directly contributed to it. i'd also contend that nettime itself is currently understood as an institution - otherwise, why question whether NNA had much to do with nettime rather than acknowledge the model of sustainability it put forth through engaging others outside the nettime proper? and why such struggle over nettime's history? - and that institutionalization is not necessarily bad - neither is it entirely avoidable; show me a tactical intervention grouping and/or a public space that is not already institutionalized in one way or another - so long as the institution is open to conflict, re-definition, re-organization and rejuvenation [by which i mean reflective of a refreshed demographic, landscape, vision]. in all recent exchanges presumably triggered by the CPR gathering [*I'd like to now propose a change of identity from NNA to CPR to signal that some of the people who attended the gathering including some of the organizers, presenters and attendees came from other milieus*], we have been focusing too much on the internal dynamics and rivalries of nettime (however we might define that interiority), but haven't given nearly as much air-time to the substance of discussions that took place, most of which were less packaged and more performative and dialogic than could be easily forwarded to the list in written text as an essay. this too was a rewarding aspect of the gathering that directly points to an inherent limitation of lists and the necessity for more real-space encounters where written communication isn't the only modus operandi. talking about sustainability, many of the presenters proposed or illustrated diverse models for sustaining critical practice through local and tactical economies (e.g. ilesansfil.org and koumbit.org), collaboration across disciplinary and geographic boundaries (e.g. ckut.ca and memefest.org), and practice/action-oriented organizing (e.g. act-mtl, viral knitting collective and Magnetic Identity Liberation Front). to me, these pointed to a qualitative move away from imagining the internet as a permanent address - prime intellectual real estate of the 80s and 90s - and toward seeing it as a tool of communication and organization - without as much utopian overtures that also were the dominant discourse of the previous moments. outside the presentations, one of the most interesting conversations i had (that went on over the course of two days and a few inevitable and chance encounters) was with roberta and alessandra about precarity movement and their work ("action") that they are planning for toronto. (see Alessandra Renzi, 11 Jun 2006, Subject: <nettime> Fwd: [RK] No struggle against the void. Report from Barcelona.) it's interesting to observe that vocal nettimers have paid so little attention, at least on the list, to the "new, immanently flexible yet radical social subject - the precariat" (Kernow Craig, 6 Oct 2004, Subject: <nettime> Precarity and n/european Identity) since it was brought up on the list (19 posts in total since 2004, most of them one-offs), thus clearly exhibiting an institutional reticence (for example, see Keith Hart, 19 May 2006, Subject: Re: <nettime> Mona Cholet/ le Monde Diplolmatique: France's precarious graduate) to respond meaningfully to calls coming from a "younger" generation of intellectuals and critical practitioners whose ambitions are not entirely defined by their academic orientation and status but are neither anti-intellectual nor anti-academic (is anybody else sick of how simplistically these charges have been deployed and implied recently?) i agree with david garcia that sustainability is a pressing issue, but i'm not entirely sure about the nature of whatever it is we are sustaining. i repeat myself: there has been too much emphasis on personal(ized) histories and dynamics (mostly issued from a tiny, tiny minority of nettime subscribers) and not enough on the substance of what we might call critical (net) culture. at the very least, CPR (and the follow-up list exchanges) opened a fissure in seemingly monolithic nettime culture and exposed some of the underlying conflicts. this is a productive moment. it'll be interesting to see how it gets used. be well. gita -- -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> It is not at all our job to renovate ideological institutions on the basis of the existing social order by means of innovations. Instead our innovations must force them to surrender that basis. So: For innovations, against renovation! [Bertolt Brecht, 1932] <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- <- 8.0 <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime nettime mod squad nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 07:35:14 +0200 Dear Nettimers, present and past -- The first nettime message was sent on 31 May 1995,[1] almost twenty years ago. A lot has happened since then, and we're proud of how well this list, and the larger nettime 'neighborhood,' has traced many of these epochal changes. The list's alumni/ae is a who's who of critical culture across an incredible range of fields. They -- really, *you* -- have helped to redefine activism, shape national and international legal and economic reforms, lead international cultural festivals and some of the world's most famous musems, produce astonishing works of art, write fiction and nonfiction that's won awards and redefined entire disciplines, and build crucial free and open-source software, to name just a few things. And those are just the 'heroic' stories. There are many more obscure ones that, if anything, are even more impressive, as even a quick glance at nettime's Wikipedia entry will show.[2] A few nettimers have passed away, and we miss them dearly, still. Moreover, most like-minded projects of a similar age have either vanished or, alternatively, have succeeded by forsaking their alternative status for the discursive bonds of institutional security. Nettime stands alone as a deliberately, even radically independent project. Its migration over the years -- in-berlin.de, desk.nl, material.net, thing.net, waag.nl, and now kein.org and bitnik.org -- tells just one part of that story. [1] http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9810/msg00048.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettime But if times have changed, Nettime has not. At a time when an email address as such is becoming a generational marker (for many younger people it's little more than a tool of the man), the very idea of a mailing list is itself an anachronism. It's slow -- sometimes slower than a mailed letter would be, at this point. It takes time to read and write. And there's no images, no video, no memes, no numbers, stats or ranks, no friends or followers -- in short, there's not much to like about it. 'Tactical' media has gone viral -- it's mainly absorbed in its own anthologies -- while 'viral' media have become a cliche for marketers and other assorted bottom-feeders. Nettime is still devoted to criticism of the net, in a way. But how could that matter when it's debatable whether 'the net' even exists anymore? Hasn't everyone else moved on to the post-digital? 'Posttime,' anyone? In this and many other ways, nettime has been 'graying.' It's wedded to a particular Euro-American moment, the so-called summer of the Internet, which has since turned to winter. Nettime's once-radical embrace of the ex-East -- or, if you like, of the ex-West -- barely extends to Hungary now, and has nothing to say to the decisive conflicts around Russia's borders, obviously (but not only) in Ukraine. Its early tacit prohibition on ritualizeddebates about Israel and Palestine has grown into a complete failure to address the profoundly important dynamics across parts of the world conventionally -- and reductively -- called 'Muslim' or 'Arab.' These areas are too often consigned to the 'timelessness' of conflict, but there's every reason to believe that their liberatory struggles could ultimately define the future of the 'WEIRD' nations. China? Barely a peep about it. Africa? Nettime is nowheresville. The seas, the skies, the circulatory flows? Nada. And how about nongeographical 'areas' where the most moving cultural changes are happening -- in the flowerings of new forms of subjectivity around the world and the new forms of sovereignty they're giving rise to. Silence. But, really, who cares what a bunch of straight white cis guys -- which is 95% of the list's traffic -- think about those things? Really. We briefly hoped that we might begin to address these questions and more with a twentieth-anniverasary conference in Bucharest. Not a 'revival tour' of nettime's ageing heroes but, instead, some broader kind of gathering around newer, open questions. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out. Nettime is not mobile and there is no app for that. After considering these and other options, and trying to imagine how we could 'upgrade' nettime's creaky infrastructure so that it'd at least have a chance, we've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be better to make a graceful exit. So we've decided to fold up shop on 30 May, the day before the list would turn twenty. Nettime has a troubled history when it comes to unsubscribing people -- plus, since we're stuck in 1995 and *none* of this this is automated -- so we're asking that each of you to pitch in by unsubscribing yourself before that date. You can find the link to do so here: <http://nettime.org/info.html>. Personally, we -- Ted Byfield and Felix Stalder -- would like to say that it's been a pleasure and an honor to moderate the list for the last seventeen-odd years. It's been a part of our lives, and we'll miss it very much. -- the mod squad 8.1 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime chris christiaansz ungerer nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST) L.S. 8.2 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Armin Medosch nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:34:36 +0200 Hi Mod squad, you are not serious, are you? Lets get 50 together!!! While the deficiences of nettime that you describe are real, it is still the only place where I can reach out to a nearly global crowd of critical thinkers, and it still has an impact which I can verfiy by the stats of my website and by direct qualitative feedback. when I send something to certain other lists it gets drowned out by announcements or mindless techno-babble. and while the identity of those who frequently post here confirms to stereotype, mostly male white and over 40, or much older ;-) I would assume that the demographic composition of subscribers is much more diverse than that. and mailinglists have been an anachronism since the www, so that's no argument at all please reconsider best regards Armin 8.3 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Keith Hart nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:39 +0200 Felix and Ted, I can understand that you might be fed up after all those years. Thanks for your heroic labour. If no-one else wants to take it on, so be it. But there is something intellectually dishonest about the historical, social, demographic and geographical reasons you give for winding it up. It boils down to saying that the mission identified in the 90s doen't work any more. I know that Geert is desperate to find a new mission in the age of anti-Facebook. But nettime doesn't need a purpose. It is itself. No doubt we each have our own use for it. I find a uniquely eclectic assortment of links that members pass on. I get to read Brian, Patrice, Michael Gurstein, even Felix and Ted occasionally. I have been very ill and I'm making a comeback now. The network provides an ideal audience for some of the things I want to say. It doesn't matter that it's archaic. So is email, they say. The repertoire evolves, but retains the old forms with the new. Nettime absorbs less than 2% of my onlin, but it nourishes me and I have nourished it. It must be onerous to be a 90s internet activist who feels he is past his sell-by date. It is true of course. Avant-gardism of that kind has had its day. I don't feel alienated by what succeeded it, since I was never a cutting edge techie in the first instance, just a fellow traveller. Yet the network has character, built out of the layers of its accretion. It is brutal to cut nettime off in this way. Of course, there may be no takers to succeed you. In which case RIP. But having held on for so long, is it a case of apres moi le deluge? Keith On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:35 AM, nettime mod squad <[1]nettime {AT} kein.org> wrote: Dear Nettimers, present and past -- <...> -- Prof. Keith Hart [15]www.thememorybank.co.uk 135 rue du Faubourg Poissonniere 75009 Paris, France Cell: +33684797365 References 1. mailto:nettime {AT} kein.org 2. http://in-berlin.de/ 3. http://desk.nl/ 4. http://material.net/ 5. http://thing.net/ 6. http://waag.nl/ 7. http://kein.org/ 8. http://bitnik.org/ 9. http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9810/msg00048.html 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettime 11. http://nettime.org/info.html 12. http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l 13. http://www.nettime.org/ 14. mailto:nettime {AT} kein.org 15. http://www.thememorybank.co.uk/ 8.4 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime John Young nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:13:15 -0400 Is "nottime" a nettime duo-suicide or duo-murder or duo-murder-suicide? Duo shaheedistic sado-masochism? Manifold Jim Jones-assisted shaheedistic sado-masochistic murder-suidice-genocide? A Riefenstahl Berlinische Wagnerian spectacular plumage to Uber-Germanic depression expressionism Ace Luftwaffism of de Saint-Exup?ry Lindbergh Earhart Guthmiller? Bi-Byfield-Stadler April Fool G?tterd?mmerung. 8.5 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Eric Miller nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:24:23 -0700 Thanks to Ted and Felix for all their effort over the years managing Nettime. And thanks to this community. I first subscribed in the late 90s during the height of the dot com boom here on the west coast. Nettime was a welcome counterpoint to the Wired magazine ethos of the era. This list is also how I learned about the work of David Garcia, which intrigued me, so I went to the Netherlands to study under him at HKU. And now, over 15 years later, I still find that the writing here provides insight I don???t get elsewhere in my firehose media diet. Thank you, all. Eric 8.6 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Alex Foti nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:01:13 +0200 that's so sad. will the archives still be visible at the same url? i'll miss it dearly lx 8.7 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime lincoln dahlberg nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Yes, nice April fools joke, nice parody of the type of cool kids, tech-determinist, change celebration, fast-capitalism, rhetoric not only hegemonizing the tech sector and pop culture but also colonizing much pseudo-critical media studies discourse. e.g. > "It's slow -- sometimes slower than a mailed letter would be, at this point. It takes time to read and write. And there's no images, no video, no memes, no numbers, stats or ranks, no friends or followers -- in short, there's not much to like about it. .... Hasn't everyone else moved on to the post-digital? 'Posttime,' anyone?" But now that its after April 1st, its (net)time to tell everyone its: "April fools"? I look forward to many more years of slow reading and thoughtful deliberation...thank you to all, 8.8 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Douglass Carmichael nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:45:48 -0700 i try to think seriously about the issues and have lurked here for years. it has been very valuable and the mix of voices really good. I hope it continues. 8.9 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Graham St John nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:23:21 +1100 Yes, ..... finally and what a relief ............ FACETIME LIKE On 1/04/2015 4:35 pm, nettime mod squad wrote: > Personally, we -- Ted Byfield and Felix Stalder -- would like to say > that it's been a pleasure and an honor to moderate the list for the > last seventeen-odd years. It's been a part of our lives, and we'll > miss it very much. > > -- the mod squad 8.10 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Claire Pentecost nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:26:36 -0500 Whether or not the announcement of nettime's final curtain has me playing the fool, I am happy to be provoked into asserting my enormous appreciation of this list and its dedicated moderating squad. Although I don't post, I do often read (or scan) and am grateful for the intellectual company of the regular voices here. Most of the communications developments listed in today's obituary that put nettime in the rearview mirror are in no way a satisfying substitute for this unique forum. I've subscribed since ... 1997(?) so observed many changes in the dynamic of the list; its trajectory describes in heterogeneous if not totally incommensurate detail the transformations of (mostly white and male alas) techno- subjectivity in our wildly interesting lifetimes. Of course it's only one small bit of the torrent, yes, mostly white and male, but also constituted of mostly good faith attempts to grapple with two decades of social and terrestrial convulsion. So, the frenetic world of electronic communications would/will be a little lonelier for subscribers like me (indulging in a little sentimentality here). Thank you to Ted and Felix and the long line of contributors. I suspect the prank is that, given the timing, we will think this is a joke. many wishes, claire pentecost 8.11 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Ana Viseu nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:24:06 +0100 Hello Ted (long time no see!), Hello Felix, I'd like to add my voice to this discussion. I have subscribed to Nettime (on and off) for many years and I still enjoy its alternative edge. Yes, you are right, many topics are not covered, and many audiences are invisible (although I do count as a female subscriber), but was it ever different? I don't recall Nettime ever being truly generalist or diverse in its postings. I do remember a time when Nettime was more lively, but to be honest, the low traffic is one of the things I enjoy about it (and one of the reasons I actually read what comes through it). In some ways you seem to be saying that Nettime no longer fulfills the expectations you set for it, which is not only valid but also perfectly reasonable and fair especially since you are its main, longtime caregivers. If that is the case then, congratulations on your wonderful work and thanks for the things you've helped us accomplish. Best. Ana -----------||||------------ Ana Viseu, Ph.D. Marie Curie Fellow Senior Researcher ISCTE-IUL www.anaviseu.org 8.12 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Alex Foti nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 12:05:24 +0200 shit, and i thought i was astute because i had fooled my 13-year old daughter into believing they had captured somebody from isis in the neighborhood.. you got me really sad in fact. is it true or not? fuck i agree with the guy (yes always guys..) who said that it's the only place you get cool, orginal shit on whatever the whole time. i mean let's not commit suicide, the world is already hard as it is to brave it without nettime! april's fool born in april lx 8.13 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Sean Cubitt nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:40:49 +0000 sad if true - very. I've been a sleeper for too long but have always relied on being able to access nettime since, what, sometime in the 90s. yes email is slower, but speed and brevity are not the only virtues, or youth the only time for considering the difference between shit and diamond, a distinction that the list has been fine tuned to for its several years. If indeed it's to go, many thanks to ted and felix; if there are relay runners ready for the baton, more power to them; and if anyone knows of places where a pace between the blinking of twitter and the geological pace of journals allows considered response to urgent issues, please post Sean Cubitt Professor of Film and Television; Co-Head, Department of Media and Communications Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW 8.14 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Tapas Ray nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:20:44 +0530 Heartfelt thanks toTed Byfield and Felix Stalder. Tapas 8.15 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Rachel O' Dwyer nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 14:46:01 +0100 I was really sad to read this. I really value the nettime list. I can't think of another forum that allows me to connect to these issues on a daily basis. I can't think of another group that I subscribe to that has the same depth of discussion. That's not to say that these group discussions and community dynamics are never problematic, but when is it ever otherwise? I'm not sure if I've ever contributed anything to nettime myself, but I'm a reader; I pay attention to these threads in my inbox and they provide a welcome critical heft in the middle of other lists populated by calls for conference papers and e-mails calling me to action on avaaz or Loomio :) Part of what I like is that the discussions use plain text; they aren't restricted to 140 characters or punctuated by rich media. Surely the fact that they take this very simple form is what has allowed the list to progress and endure? And also what makes it potentially open to change or flexibility in the future? On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Alex Foti <alex.foti {AT} gmail.com> wrote: > shit, and i thought i was astute because i had fooled my 13-year old > daughter into believing they had captured somebody from isis in the > neighborhood.. you got me really sad in fact. is it true or not? fuck > i agree with the guy (yes always guys..) who said that it's the only > place you get cool, orginal shit on whatever the whole time. i mean > let's not commit suicide, the world is already hard as it is to brave > it without nettime! > > april's fool born in april <...> -- openhere.data.ie #openhere +353 (1) 896 8443 +353 (85) 7023779 8.16 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime David Garica nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:07:09 +0100 Brilliant- I don't for a moment accept that it was a simple April Fool. It was deadly serious. But still on April 1st Ted & Felix found the only legitimate way to break the golden rule of Nettime: no meta discussions! Alongside skilful and authoritative moderation the no meta-discussion rule was one of the principal secrets of Nettime's longevity helping to avoid destructive inward spirals that had destroyed many earlier on-line forums. So by threatening to pull the plug the meta-discussion genie has jumped out of the bottle. So now what ? Will it prove to have been the 'suicide pill' or the risky surgical intervention required to revive the comatose patient? The answers to Modsquad's painfully forensic critique (ouch) lie in our hands. So lets put some concrete propositions on the table, before hastily reinstating the golden rule. Heres a starting pint; it may just be coincidence but I would say that the list was most vibrant when nettime people found ways to get together in person, spending days together in inspiring and strange locations. Either connecting to festivals or conferences or off its own bat. So for at least one more time (and hopefully more) lets revive this lost part of the original model? In the original post the Mods referred to a Bucharest 20th birthday plan that didn't fly. Well maybe we should put some other scenarios on the table. I am sure there are many places that would happily host this. I have some thoughts on how this might look but as usual they are hopelessly Amsterdam centric... I am happy to report (I am sitting there now busily "anthologising") that a new generation of uncynical people and possibilities are emerging from the ruins and demonstrating the resilience of this culture. But of course thats just my historical bias I'd happily travel to pastures new. One other thought though there is much talk of 'sharing' nettime writers used to share (and risk) far more. I may be mistaken but as the community (dangerous word) and its discourse has developed it has also professionalised and not always in a good way. Where once writers would have rehearsed their ideas here in rough form I suspect that the pressures around academic/publishing commodification creates a greater a reluctance expose the ideas before publication. Could this be why it feels a less risky, energetic and generous space or am I (as usual) being nostalgic. Thank you to you Modsquad David Garcia 8.17 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Lunenfeld, Peter B. nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:59:35 +0000 Dear Ted and Felix -- I read your announcement yesterday and have been trying to figure out how to respond. I have discovered yet another 21st century mental malady, which I'll call FOMO(OS): Fear of Missing Out on Sadness. Others have already posted their appreciation for your moderating (which I second), their regrets about not being as active as they used to be (ditto for me), and Brian even used the corner bar metaphor that I'd been noodling with. All I can say is that nettime was a huge part of my intellectual life early on, and that I've appreciated the list and your efforts even as I moved from regular poster to constant reader. Just recently, I appreciated all of the interesting discourses about money, neo-liberalization and Bitcoins, areas I'm not writing about myself, but that obviously inform the worlds we live in. As for the issues about a text only list serve, it may be a generational preference, but nettime offered (offers?) a place for the long-form argument to thrive, a venue to try out ideas beyond listicles without the clutter of gifs and banner ads, and the distractions of endless internal links, so that one could actually read another's thoughts and attempt to grapple with them. The process of reading nettime nurtured was neither elitist nor vanguardist, it came from and contributed to a long and distinguished tradition of thoughtful argumentation, and yes, the buildings of communities, from Republics of Letters to Empyres of Email. So, whatever happens, thanks for keeping this list going for so many years, and for encouraging others to contemplate what it means to them and how nettime or its successors might thrive. Best -- Peter Lunenfeld, Professor & Vice Chair UCLA Design Media Arts http://www.peterlunenfeld.com http://dma.ucla.edu 8.18 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Juergen Fenn nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:17:24 +0200 2015-04-02 20:59 GMT+02:00 John Hopkins <jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net>: > nothing is forever, but I ain't gonna unsub now ... gotta go back > outside to finish a worm farm. This line is apt to become another of those memes around... Very sad news, as Nettime was one of those lists I followed for such a long time. I rarely posted to the list, but I kept reading it. I also thought at first it was an April Fool's posting, but now it seems it isn't. Is there anything we can to to keep Nettime alife and around? I vow not to unsubscribe, either. Best, JÃrgen. 8.19 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime { brad brace } nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:25:31 -0700 (PDT) amazing that there is any accolade whatsoever for this institutionalised censorship! give us less of what you think we might read! how nice to be sheltered from unwanted intrusion into your comfy institutionally-sponsored lives! pack o' lies dies You cannot politically defy the institutions when all you really wanted was to be clasped to their bosoms and hope in time to be cherished under the very framework of oppressive values you are thinking of overcoming. That would be co-optation, revolution only in the sense of a circulation of elites rather than the extirpation of the very impulses of elitism. Society is like a stew; if you don't stir things up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top. To subscribe to 12-list, simply send a message with the word "subscribe" in the Subject: field to 12-list-request {AT} eskimo.com To unsubscribe from 12-list, simply send a message with the word "unsubscribe" in the Subject: field to 12-list-request {AT} eskimo.com 8.20 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Lennaart van Oldenborgh nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:10:39 +0100 Dear mod squad > First, nettime isn't shutting down. phew I was close to going into grieving mode - although I'm very much a lurker and only an occasional poster nettime has always been an intellectual touchstone for me and a welcome bit of brain stimulus in my not very academic and sometimes mindnumbing daily existence. > Moderating is snippets of time scattered across the day, there's nothing especially heroic or monumental about it. Frankly that's exactly what's heroic about it - it's so much easier to make a grand gesture and so much harder to keep up a daily grind - so I'd like to chime in with the richly deserved chorus of thanks to Ted and Felix. I don't agree with the diagnosis that this patient is 'comatose' - it's still the most thoughtful and honest net-critical platform that I know of even if the shiny novelty has worn off a bit. But these things can be very cyclical - what looks a bit tired today can easily be 'rediscovered' tomorrow and appreciated all the more for its retro integrity. Old media find new uses: vinyl has made a come back and it seems working with chemical film has become the new cool thing to do for media artists. I know we're ageing but the worst thing to do is to try and be down with the kids like some embarrassing uncle. > And there's no images, no video, no memes, no numbers, > stats or ranks, no friends or followers -- in short, there's not much > to like about it. hahahaha! like it lennaart Lennaart van Oldenborgh lennaart {AT} hofilms.co.uk 8.21 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Felix Stalder nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 03 Apr 2015 00:09:48 +0200 On 2015-04-02 12:05, Alex Foti wrote: > i mean let's not commit suicide, Yeah, let's not do that, not the least because, as Bifo pointed out, that would be a response entirely in line with how systems works. The initial post was neither entirely serious, nor simply a gotcha joke that exhausts itself through revelation. Rather, it was meant as way to break our own unwritten rules, as a way to open a discussion about the list, on the list (as David Garcia immediately recognized). And not because there is an urgent crisis to be addressed, innovation to be implemented, or any other managerial goal to be reached. Nor did Ted and I need a collected pat on the back to fight off the impending burn-out. No, it was meant provoke a moment to think about something that for many of us has become part of daily life. Those things tend to disappear into the background, we take them for granted, assume that some form of impersonal institution is taking care of it without much of our involvement. And, really, nettime is the opposite. It's fragile, has no back-up, and, most of all, relies nothing but good will, many criss-crossing friendships, some dislikes and, beyond that, and a strange kind of communion of people who, as I far as I can tell, do not easily take to communions. So, for me, the question is what do we want to do with this? Which does explicitly not mean, how do we want to change that? Perhaps there are things to chance, perhaps we do not want to chance much. The latter might be a good thing, since many of the structural features that are now setting nettime apart stem from the fact that we missed out on a lot of innovations that lead others and net culture, which is mainstream culture today, down the rabbit hole of frenzied, quantified narcissism. If anything this thread shows that while we are all more than aware of the shortcomings, we still see value in the effort of collective thinking that does not lend itself to being measured, put on CVs or otherwise made direct use of. To create and maintain something like this is a real collective achievement by all of us, past and present, and perhaps, even future. Even if whole is perhaps more than the sum of its parts, it's the parts, that is the time and energy everyone is contributing, both through writing and reading (which is falsely called lurking) where all of this comes from. We are encouraging you, that is, us, to think of how might bend this collective effort in shapes more congenial to you/us. David Garcia suggested a few ways that this might be done and I'm sure he missed a few too. This is not a task that needs to be a addressed today, there is no deadline, but a next week, a next month, and a next year. Felix - -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com |OPEN PGP: 056C E7D3 9B25 CAE1 336D 6D2F 0BBB 5B95 0C9F F2AC 8.22 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Aliette GC nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 3 Apr 2015 02:02:23 +0200 Hello friends and comrades! Interesting thread... first I was threatened since reading told us that something beautiful could stop once again, like so much beautiful things lost nowadays. But I understood what and why Felix and Ted called us to think and discuss. I do not publish mostly time because I write hard and wrong into english but I read the posts, it is important to feel what the redactors resent and think in matter of analysis and as projects, in this chaotic moment. This free server list since so much year it is a chance. A chance so much universal and so much singular a track from the late XXth century. Mostly a chance such as criticical acts at the moment the social networks are not anymore our media. Please do not put it in the trash bin... Let it live if you can dear mods, and with us too. I pay tribute to Geert, Pit, Felix, and Ted. Aliette Louise 8.23 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Nick nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:09:16 +0100 Quoth David Garica: > One other thought though there is much talk of 'sharing' nettime > writers used to share (and risk) far more. I may be mistaken but as the > community (dangerous word) and its discourse has developed it has also > professionalised and not always in a good way. Where once writers would > have rehearsed their ideas here in rough form I suspect that the > pressures around academic/publishing commodification creates a greater a > reluctance expose the ideas before publication. Could this be why it > feels a less risky, energetic and generous space or am I (as usual) > being nostalgic. I'd guess this is mostly due to it being archived and easily searchable. I certainly find it harder to take risks and admit vulnerablility in such an environment. Though archiving and searchability are certainly useful. One answer is pseudonymity, but that brings its own limitations. 8.24 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Eric Kluitenberg nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:46:36 +0200 dear nettimers, So, nettime is not, for the moment going to disappear, and I'm for one quite happy about that. I feel ambivalent though about the way in which the issue of 'taking stock' of the current substance (or lack thereof) of the list and its extended constituency (to avoid the overused term `community') has been raised. For me the greatest quality of nettime is its continuity and continued presence, with all its defects and shortcomings, but still. And this is in no small part due to the continued efforts of Ted and Felix keeping this edifice alive and dragging it through extended periods of sluggishness. I used the word `monumental' in a private mail to Ted the other day (off-list) and saw that he already integrated it in his recent negation of all the shoulder patting rumbling through the ascii flows... Well OK let's move on then. I think there are a number of issues that need to be unpicked from this `intervention' that require some reflexion and possibly also some actions to follow up on. First an uneasy one that so far only Ted dared address (yesterday): ownership of the list and what extends from it - Ted and Felix don't know if they could, or have the `right', to close this list down even if they wanted to - despite their extremely extended `stewardship' of the whole affair. And Ted's right - I don't think that this list and what it extends into is or should be / can be `owned' by anyone, and therefore nobody in particular has the right to shut it down. Still, things need to be maintained, both technically, editorially and as a living social entity - all that doesn't happen by itself and if the extended constituency would not find somehow a solution for it the thing would in effect disappear if Ted and Felix stopped taking care of things. That's an unresolved dilemma that afflicts many of such invaluable not for profit / not for glory enterprises - a bit of `crowd funding' will not solve this. David Garcia is talking about `resilience' instead of that other overused term 'sustainability', but we don't know exactly how to organise this beyond personal sacrifice (sacrificial labour is a more apt term here than `affective'). That's an important one for our list - how to solve this (not just for nettime)? But then there are a whole bunch of specific issues lumped together in the original posting that should in fact be taken separately, I think, before we make a judgement about the larger whole. I've copied the paragraph again at the bottom of this message. So let's unpick: - the summer of the internet is over: that is in itself already a question whether or not this moment and its momentum is over? I actually don't really think so, but it has become a much more complicated space of activity to get to grips with - the walled gardens of (anti-) `social' networking platforms (that everybody nonetheless seems to flock to, so where are the alternatives that are so unlike the corporate mainstream?). The revelation that the control society was every bit as bad as we had imagined it in our worst nightmares... The sad fact that the massive participation in online media and self-mediation has not by itself and of itself lead to a more open, democratic, equitable society (or should we say `collective'?). - the former `East' for the most part does not exist anymore - it is now rather a vanguard for political experiments that set a tone for much of Europe to follow. What was still termed `enduring post-communism' during Next 5 Minutes 4, back in 2003, now really seems to have come to an end. The rise of chauvinist authoritarianism voted into power in Hungary is not so much a regression to the past as it is a prefiguration of a future we must desperately try to avoid. - that we have so little reports and discussions about what is happening on Russia's borders is actually hardly a surprise. The only ones who could offer us a genuinely interesting perspective on what is going on are the ones inside Russia, who live that situation. But they will not speak out in public - it's too dangerous. Do it and not only will you put your own life at risk (think of Oleg Kyreev's so-called 'suicide' after openly supporting the idea of an orange revolution in Russia - we will never forget that!), but also the livelihood of your friends and family (losing jobs, benefits, housing, opportunities) - this is all very real and the last thing you will do when in such a situation is speak out in public (archived for eternity). No wonder there's no voices on this list that could enlighten us. We are very much back to the good old days of `Kremlin-watchers' who attempt to interpret spurious signs of tightly controlled (media-)enactments that could mean anything or nothing at all - really.. - China, Middle-East, Africa, and for that matter Latin America, all very much absent indeed and we miss this dearly. There are net.cultures in these places, but they are not with us. I agree fully with Ted and Felix here that this is a major issue. In the past we had a healthy inflow from South Asia via the Sarai `constituency', but that too has dried up, largely because it migrated to Sarai's very active Reader List and other fora, but we've somehow lost touch. I guess for a variety of reasons. - nettime could do more, much more to connect with the new generations of what I usually refer to as the `movement(s) of the squares', and what Ted and Felix call the `flowerings of new forms of subjectivity and the new forms of sovereignty that they give rise to' - indeed. The generation issue is not so relevant for me. The more important point would be to build on nettime's continued presence to create connections between different generations, to exchange experiences and knowledge, to learn more from what is happening right now, to understand, create solidarity, gain new insights and energies.. That wil not happen by itself, but requires a dedicated and conscious effort - would that be thinkable in the context of nettime? Who knows? Maybe... - the "profoundly important dynamics across parts of the world conventionally -- and reductively -- called 'Muslim' or `Arab'" - when I want to figure out something there, my first stop is always the superb Jadaliyya blog. But there are no `Jadaliyyans' on nettime, alas, none so far as I am conscious about. And yet they are only one e-mail away. For the Tactical Media Files resource I collected a number of contributions from that `constituency' and never had a problem getting a swift response and co-operation, so what's stopping nettime? I think the idea for (finally) a nettime meeting again (after way too many years) is a really valuable one. And indeed it can take many forms, but it would be great to meet up for this, discuss, debate, invite youngsters and non-grey/whites/males/euromaricans and so on, cross-connect, pollinate, infect, contaminate and infuse, all that. Let's again be `proud to be flesh'.. In short, let's move from self-reflection to some concrete actions... up for the next 20...! :) in appreciation, eric On 01 Apr 2015, at 07:35, nettime mod squad <nettime {AT} kein.org> wrote: In this and many other ways, nettime has been 'graying.' It's wedded to a particular Euro-American moment, the so-called summer of the Internet, which has since turned to winter. Nettime's once-radical embrace of the ex-East -- or, if you like, of the ex-West -- barely extends to Hungary now, and has nothing to say to the decisive conflicts around Russia's borders, obviously (but not only) in Ukraine. Its early tacit prohibition on ritualizeddebates about Israel and Palestine has grown into a complete failure to address the profoundly important dynamics across parts of the world conventionally -- and reductively -- called 'Muslim' or 'Arab.' These areas are too often consigned to the 'timelessness' of conflict, but there's every reason to believe that their liberatory struggles could ultimately define the future of the 'WEIRD' nations. China? Barely a peep about it. Africa? Nettime is nowheresville. The seas, the skies, the circulatory flows? Nada. And how about nongeographical 'areas' where the most moving cultural changes are happening -- in the flowerings of new forms of subjectivity around the world and the new forms of sovereignty they're giving rise to. Silence. But, really, who cares what a bunch of straight white cis guys -- which is 95% of the list's traffic -- think about those things? Really. 8.25 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Colin Hodson nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:15:55 +0000 Hi everyone. I too wondered what nettime meant to me at the spectre of its possible demise. I don't think of myself as active in the contributing sense, but definitely active in consuming the fantastic output ( and I mean fantastic in terms of volume, speed, and ideas bouncing through the posts). The loss for me would be that I am being exposed to thought and histories I would not come across in other contexts. And yes, not a peep about so many things. But a lot of peeps that have taken me to quite some places. So nettime fuels me in a unique way, big thanks to those who share here. Very interesting and a pleasure to see it (and some of its constituents) in this April 1st relexivity. cheers Colin 8.26 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Thomas Gramstad nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 4 Apr 2015 21:53:21 +0200 (CEST) +1 Thomas Gramstad 8.27 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Kath O'Donnell nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:26:09 +1000 thanks from me too. long time lurker & reader. 8.29 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime nativebuddha nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 5 Apr 2015 22:24:24 -0400 is this an accelerationist experiment with nettime? making it see its own futurity and warping it up to deathspeed? always struck by first steps into virtual worlds where newbies go for the sex sex sex...followed by final swan song exits singing forth no-stal-gia. how will we engrave the nettime tombstone? warp it up more and move beyond H Rheingold mourning communities. what happens then? -nativebuddha 8.30 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime czegledy nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:20:19 -0400 Sincere thanks to Ted and Felix for keeping the often intriguing nettime exchange alive for all these years. I joined in the late nineties, and while seldom posting kept up with the discussions faithfully. nina czegledy 8.31 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Keith Sanborn nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:48:38 -0400 Thanks for this explanation. Still, feel the love, Ted and Felix, before we move on. 8.32 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Molly Hankwitz nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:45:39 -0700 Dear Ted and Felix, Well, I started reading from the most recent and *shocked* replies, and then, I went back to find this long email. Crazy, but, I was just thinking, something I do occasionally - :') (about two days ago) about the fact that nettime STILL has the old, grey email interface and the form of a list....when Mark Zuckerberg and his cohorts have dazzled 9 billion people - like burgers - to "add content" - because its more exciting, hogs up more bandwidth, acts like Reality TV and spreads ad sprawl globally... and I thought, 'hmmm, its kind of a good thing, kind of a relief, kind of wonderful that nettime is still nettime and there are few "content-delivery" expectations, and there are some half way interesting arguments, texts, writings, reviews... This is such a cop out not a confession of radical/unradical ...well, thanks for keeping the list "alive" but please, don't tell us, after running a low tech internet list for almost 20 years, that the reason you are folding is because the Internet is "post" and there are not enough pictures on nettime...I thought low-tech, high-concept was the idea...n5m3...you know? Not "multimedia" to use a 90s term. I thought this was what made nettime cool, not measuring it against snailmail...I thought SLOW MEDIA was good media...and wouldn't some younger people, if you two have gotten tired, to take over some of the list work? I'm sad that there's no merit in the good old list format...as seen by so-called critics of technology... what happens to looking to nettime for something crisp to be said about technology? Huh? I'm confused Molly Hankwitz 8.33 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Kruno Jost nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:28:07 +0200 > People who just (or mostly) read on-line do not deserve the creepy > designater - lurker. Thank you David for this observation, this is my first post after reading (lurking) for some years and doing it passionately. Nettime list is research and study material, much more alive than any blog or social media. It is a living portal. And am glad to see so many people I know here, and so many people I will get to know in the future. Even if sharing means two way communication, and my lurking is not especially friendly to other list inhabitants, I am taking that all the ideas and info here is to be shared to others who are not on any lists. So thanking everyone in their name too, Best Kruno -- URBANA KULTURA I EDUKACIJA Dravska 17, Varaždin, Hrvatska www.uke.hr 8.34 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Kevin Flanagan nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:51:19 +0200 A reassuring side effect of announcing the death of someone or something whether it be an April fool prank or not is that people you don't know turn up for the funeral with eulogies and elegies. As an art student nettime was my first real encounter with an active critical net culture I preferred to listen and learn and have never actively contributed but please do not mistake silence for absence, clearly there are many of us here who value nettime. It has for me always been a source for provocation and inspiration. It's great to see so many nettimers here. Thank you all. I hope we will continue to celebrate the spirit of nettime together for some time to come. Kevin  On 6 April 2015 at 22:28, Kruno Jost <[1]udrugauke {AT} gmail.com> wrote: > People who just (or mostly) read on-line do not deserve the creepy > designater - lurker. Thank you David for this observation, this is my first post after reading (lurking) for some years and doing it passionately. Nettime list is research and study material, much more alive than any blog or social media. It is a living portal. And am glad to see so many people I know here, and so many people I will get to know in the future. <...> -- For P2P Foundation related messages please contact me at [6]kevin {AT} p2pfoundation.net [7]http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ [8]https://twitter.com/flgnk Skype: kev.flanagan Phone: +353 87 743 5660 References 1. mailto:udrugauke {AT} gmail.com 2. http://www.uke.hr/ 3. http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l 4. http://www.nettime.org/ 5. mailto:nettime {AT} kein.org 6. mailto:kevin {AT} p2pfoundation.net 7. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ 8. https://twitter.com/flgnk 8.35 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime dan nettime-l@kein.org Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:44:41 -0400 Dear Moderators, Thank you for your thankless work. If this list goes to the web or to a service, Google or otherwise, I won't be coming along. I don't do blogs, I don't use anything that requires that I establish an account, and I don't execute code that others send (Javascript, for a prime example). As long as nettime remains multi-cast plaintext, it is free from the lion's share of toxins, broadly defined, and it will have me as a subscriber. --dan 8.36 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime Michael H. Goldhaber nettime-l@kein.org Tue, 7 Apr 2015 22:24:04 -0700 Thanks Ted and Felix for revealing that you weren't completely serious, as well as for your incredible energy in editing all through the years, bringing many lively thoughts and fascinating conversations to us in what has seemed like "real time." I note that when I began to subscribe, at Bruce S's suggestion, back in the 90's, Deleuze and Guattari's thought seemed the polestar by which all else was reckoned. It has utterly disappeared, without replacement, as far as I'm aware. My guess is this is not peculiar to nettime, and may not be a bad trend at all, but it is in some ways a sobering fact that obeisance to some kind of possibly vague but "higher" thought is understood as no more needed or helpful. To be sure much of that was a kind of academic posturing at one time likely to help in certain careers, but no longer. Still one misses the poetry of it, a bit, along with the sense in retrospect that the world was then young and full of mystery, or at least of "miasmal mists." Does someone else or perhaps you, Felix and Ted, have a clearer sense of why none of us see fit anymore to enclose our writings in that kind of gift wrapping? Best, Michael 8.37 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime JNM nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:27:51 +0100 +1 JN 9.0 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettimee - let's change th adsl487504 {AT} telfort.nl nettime-l@kein.org 4 Apr 2015 11:24:26 +0200 Nettime took off in a studio next to mine at Kuenstlerhaus Bethanien, in 1995. I did not get then very well what Geert and Pit were up to, as my Eastern European mind was warped around different issues. But it was precisely the Eastern-European, non-US-centric side of nettime that made it fly well, in spectacular loops, from Berlin to Budapest to Ljubljana, from net-art to the post-Soros era, to ⦠The Bucharest meeting, which has been presented here in the initial posting as a symptom of nettimeâs end, was my idea. Last year in July, afetr taking over the directorship of the National Museum of Contemporary Art (MNAC) Bucharest, one of my first thoughts has been to the flesh meetings of nettime, and to what they meant to me, and to others. I briefly shared with Ted first and then with Felix my feelings, and my interest in bringing about a nettime gathering at MNAC, in Bucharest (sorry David, no more Amsterdam for once). At the same time I shared my reservations about the current lack of interest for this region (yes, Hugary, Ukraine, Russia, the Baltics, Poland, the Black Sea and the Danube question, Romania even), and the dominant non-iconic preoccupations of the list, which make it slightly off-beat for a vivid, rapidly growing community of young people here, who are mainly interested in visual culture, activist art, cross-media experiments, and the complicated politics of the region. They come and tell me that the buzz goes about Bucharest being the Berlin of the 2015s. Might be. MNAC is located in what has been called for many years Ceausescuâs Palace; now we have here as neighbors the Romanian Parliament. It is an interesting setting. Leviathan. We do not have fancy budgets, but a great terrace with a view on the construction site of the what will be the National Cathedral of Romania (!). And we have the skills to animate good gatherings and good parties. The rest is on you, nettimers. If this sounds like an invitation, then come with the details. Sincerely yours, Calin Dan On 04 Apr 2015, at 06:15, Colin Hodson <colinhodson {AT} gmail.com> wrote: Hi everyone. I too wondered what nettime meant to me at the spectre of its possible demise. I don't think of myself as active in the contributing sense, but definitely active in consuming the fantastic output ( and I mean fantastic in terms of volume, speed, and ideas bouncing through the posts). The loss for me would be that I am being exposed to thought and histories I would not come across in other contexts. And yes, not a peep about so many things. But a lot of peeps that have taken me to quite some places. So nettime fuels me in a unique way, big thanks to those who share here. Very interesting and a pleasure to see it (and some of its constituents) in this April 1st relexivity. cheers Colin 9.1 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettimee - let's change th in nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:43:29 -0400 Dear Calin and all I live thousands of kilometer from Bucharest on a place called Providencia in Santiago, Chile, but its sound interesting making a reflection about the network in these postfacebook era. Maybe I can contact my old latin american colleague, who were in nettime-lat maybe to make an online conference? We would love to go there but money have being always an issue for us. So if you got a date maybe the nettimers could give ideas about the name of these twenty years celebration. --in 10.0 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettimee [2x] Newmedia nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:41:49 +0200 ----- Forwarded message from Newmedia {AT} aol.com ----- From: Newmedia {AT} aol.com Subject: Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettimee Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:21:35 -0400 To: nettime {AT} kein.org Folks: The MEDIUM is *still* the MESSAGE . . . !! Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights In a message dated 4/1/2015 4:11:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nettime {AT} kein.org writes: Dear Nettimers, present and past -- ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Newmedia {AT} aol.com ----- From: Newmedia {AT} aol.com Subject: Re: <nettime> net.critique in autumn Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:05:06 -0400 To: bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com, nettime-l {AT} kein.org Brian: > I think we have a lot of capacity to explore the new > directions that cybernetic society is going to take > in the autumn of the Internet boom. One word: China (which is where I headed in 1997, after meeting up with the crew in Budapest <g>) . . . Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights ----- End forwarded message ----- 10.28 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettime David Garica nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:52:24 +0100 People who just (or mostly) read on-line do not deserve the creepy designater - lurker. Reading is a very different experience when done in the knowledge that we can at any point respond. Even if we never actually do. New ways of reading and writing, making and being together (appart) is something I first learned about on nettime. 11.0 <nettime> ***SPAM*** Re: nottime: the end of nettime morlockelloi nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:46:07 -0700 This alone is a major success. 12.0 Re: <nettime> nottime: the end of nettimee: 12-lis { brad brace } nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 1 Apr 2015 19:39:09 -0700 (PDT) You cannot politically defy the institutions when all you really wanted was to be clasped to their bosoms and hope in time to be cherished under the very framework of oppressive values you are thinking of overcoming. That would be co-optation, revolution only in the sense of a circulation of elites rather than the extirpation of the very impulses of elitism. Society is like a stew; if you don't stir things up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top. To subscribe to 12-list, simply send a message with the word "subscribe" in the Subject: field to 12-list-request {AT} eskimo.com To unsubscribe from 12-list, simply send a message with the word "unsubscribe" in the Subject: field to 12-list-request {AT} eskimo.com 13.0 <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim nettime's mod squad nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:24:30 +0100 Eric Kluitenberg and David Garcia asked us to draft an entry/essay on <nettime> for their upcoming anthology on tactical media, so we did. But it quickly became clear that if we seriously believed our our argument, we'd need to invite comments from the entire list. So, without further adieu, here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f9Gndq40aFOJMl18lOT79y71X6wtWzbYyK4iClTJRLA/edit?usp=sharing If you have a Google login and use it, you can comment with attribution; if you don't or you'd prefer not to, you can comment anonymously. Either way, we'll do our best to address or incorporate suggestions. In many ways, we think this is the next intuitive step after the 'nottime' April Fool's mail. This essay is very positive, but we've also tried to be fair in assessing the list's weaknesses and failures. We hope you'll do be fair as well. Of course we're aware of the glaring irony that it's a Google Doc. Like it or not, they're an excellent way to collaborate on a text. And, as Benjamin Mako Hill pointed out, Google has most of our email because it has all of yours. the mod squad (Felix and Ted) The list as open collectivity: <nettime> at 20 years and counting Ted Byfield & Felix Stalder This is an insider account. Both of us have been deeply involved in the <nettime> project from very early on, and most of that time on a daily basis as the list's moderators. So our story is inevitably biased in ways that we are probably not even aware of; but we hope to make up for this with a nuanced account of the transformations of the project which have kept it, for more than 20 years, an important node in the free-ranging, oppositional examination the cultural and technopolitical transformations of the present. As the footer appended to every message states: # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets Indeed, the peculiar relationship between transformation and continuity is probably the key to understanding <nettime> and why it has remained relevant for so long and why we call it an "open collectivity." By this, we mean a group of people held together by a shared horizon grounded in common experiences, vectors of interest, and modes of agency; but rather than relying a fixed internal structure or charismatic personalities, its interal composition remains fluid and shifting, in response to desires, pressures, and opportunities. In "technological" terms, it has barely changed at all. Since its founding in late October of 1995, its material basis has been a mailing list â a simple piece of software, running on a server, which manages a subscriber list and distributes email to them. Moreover, <nettime> has always restricted message to the text-only format. Initially, this convention was driven by communitarian aims of maximizing access (for users who connected over a low-bandwidth modem) and minimizing software conflicts. Over time, though, this became central to the list's culture and, as more communication turns image-heavy, one of its distinguishing features. So there are no "styled" formats, no attachments, and no images, sound, or video. At first, <nettime> used the majordomo software package, then later Mailman; both are standard (mostly) free software programs. There are some minor tweaks to mailman so the list can still be moderated using a command-line interface â arcane but efficient â but that's it. Nothing special. Running a mailing list also involves technical decisions and social approaches that shape not just the daily ebb and flow of traffic but also the cumulative archive. We recognized this early on, and formulated a few minimal "policies" â for example, discouraging "bare" URLs and encouraging people to send complete texts, which over time ensured that, unlike most mailing-list archives, <nettime>'s would become an open library of substantial ideas rather than a chatty jumble of links to bitrot, parked domains, and malware traps. Other choices have contributed to this unusual resource â notably, the use of a pseudonymous "digestive system" to anonymize many contributions and incorporate interesting texts on current (and sometimes past) events and phenomena. The list has always been hosted on noncommercial servers run by people within the open collectivity that formed around the list. First, at the International City Berlin, then from February 1996 to July 1999 at desk.nl, then after a brief temporary asylum on material.net (NYC), the list moved to bbs.thing.net (NYC), and since July, 2007 it has been hosted on kein.org (Munich). Its archive, which as of late 2015 contains more than 22,000 messages, the full traffic since the list's inception, was hosted first by the Society for Old and New Media (waag.org [Amsterdam]); since 2014 on servers run by the media arts collective !Mediengruppe Bitnik (ZÃrich). For most of the users, whose numbers rose slowly but continuously to about 4500 in late 2015, these changes in the technical infrastructure where barely perceptible. Relying on fluid relations of friendship made it possible to run the project without involving any financial exchanges, not even donations or grants. Someone pays for the domain name, but that's it. Everything is donated in kind, according to ability and according to need. There was never a compelling reason to develop any formal organizational structure, and â in light of periodic ruptures in funding patterns that led to so many failed cultural organizations â many compelling reasons not to. As an organization, then, <nettime> is made up of deep, overlapping ties of mutual interest, friendship, respect, and commitment. For those without such ties <nettime> might sometimes seem exclusive or even "closed," culturally speaking. This approach is not without its peculiar twists, to which we will return, but extreme informality enabled the open collectivity to morph into numerous shapes, to adapt to changing needs and interests of this constituency, and to keep everything on a voluntary, self-motivated basis. Moreover, rather than focus on specific issues or projects, <nettime> provided a deliberately open context for disseminating, debating, and documenting the wider range of ideas â digital human rights, media law and policy, intellectual property, security and cryptography, media activism, aesthetics and art practice, and the changing construction of "the artist," to name just a few â from which local activist practices sprang. As such, for at least some first-generation subscribers it became a "university of the nets," a high-signal, low-noise internationalist source for radical theories and practices. Thus, while the list's technology has remained simple and stable, the collectivity and the value it provides to his members, has undergone subtle but deep changes. This can be summarized by dividing the last 20 years of history into four phases. This periodization is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but for present purposes it should serve to highlight the intertwingled threads of continuity and change. The Delirium of Networking: the "heroic period," 1995â1998 <nettime> was founded at a time when the Internet was far from "ubiquitous." Even where it was available it was often hard to reach, through cranky modems and creaky connections. Once connected, it didn't take much effort to stumble into raging debates about the what this "Internet," which appeared to many as a tremendous but vague promise, was supposed to be. The loudest chorus was American, many of whom advanced the notion of cyberspace as yet another new frontier and new territory for cowboy romance. <nettime> immediately positioned itself against such spatial metaphors. The time of nettime is a social time, it is subjective and intensive, with condensation and extractions, segmented by social events like conferences and little meetings, and text gatherings for export into the paper world. Most people still like to read a text printed on wooden paper, more than transmitted via waves of light. Nettime is not the same time like geotime, or the time clocks go. Everyone who programs or often sits in front of a screen knows about the phenomena of being out of time, time on the net consists of different speeds, computers, humans, software, bandwidth, the only way to see a continuity of time on the net is to see it as a asynchronous network of synchronized time zones. <nettime> emerged from meetings of European artists and activist interested exploring the new possibilities of the net for artistic and political experimentation with a maximum of independence from established institutions. Initially the list served as way to keep these discussions going between meetings and to include people unable to travel at the frantic pace of events. The first years were delirious as international communication as a daily activity was new to almost everyone. The self-styled task of creating a new "European" net.culture was never about geography â it was about affinities. Those involved included deep connections into the former East Bloc, which had opened up only a few years earlier, as well as important contingents from North America and Australia â all within a medium with no fixed rules or expectation, which contributed what Geert Lovink once called "the short summer of the Internet." But not everyone felt content with the new lingua franca, English, and the vague borderlessness of the Net. Soon, additional <nettime> lists appeared, as fora for discussions in Dutch, Romanian, French, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish/Portuguese and other languages. Not all of them thrived, but some did, for almost as long as the English language list. The iconic statement from this early period is still Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron's "Californian Ideology," published in Mute magazine. This essay provided a powerful critique of the "bizarre fusion" of seemingly contradictory elements: neoliberal worship of the entrepreneur and the market, irreverence of anti-authoritarian counterculture, and McLuhanite technological determinism. This "heterodox ideology," they argued, systematically omitted the crucial roles of public funding and of grassroots activists in the history of the Internet, erasing non-market histories and futures. Given how dominant the internet has become in such a short time, it would be easy to overlook how the adoption of a mailing list to connect these diverse people and contexts was itself a form of media activism. There is an open question whether, over time, the mailing list has become so normalized as to lose that potential, something that happened arguably to other "tactical media"â for example, guerilla video. We think not â and that it's worth reflecting on unexamined potentials mailing lists may have (say, compared to commercial and image-driven "social media"). From the beginning, <nettime> served as an environment for experimentation with the new medium and, beyond that, as a collaborative platform to prepare publications outside of it. The physical fact of these publications latter was seen by some as prima facie evidence that an effort remained "real" â and its absence evidence that an effort had somehow lost its way. However that may be, the combination of continuous exchanges and sporadic meetings (often "parasitically" attached to larger cultural events) and publication proved to be productive, flexible, and durable. This mode of operation enabled a wide variety of people to forge a core of shared experiences, both personal and collective. As a result, the list's subscriber base quickly approached 1,000, many of them significant artists and thinkers in the early net.cultures. The preferred offline publication format was that of a newspaper: quick, dirty, and easy to distribute while travelling. Between January and November 1996 five newspapers were published in connection with festivals across Europe, and in 1997 another one. In the same year, the collectivity provided the backbone of the "hybrid workspace" at the Documenta X exhibition. By 1999 <nettime> was already publishing its own anthology ReadMe! ASCII Culture and the Revenge of Knowledge; and in 2001, an edited version of nettime was part of the catalogue of the Slovenian pavilion at the Venice Biennale. But summers don't last long, particularly short ones. Two main fault lines quickly opened up within the collectivity. First, some sought to use the list to advance narrow personal/political agendas. Second, open conflict between "net.artists" who sought to explore the boundaries of the list-format (for example, by what would later came to be known as "trolling" as an art practice) and "net.theorists" who insisted the list should be a channel for ambitious net.criticism. In 1997 a number of net.artists left the list in protest and founded another, called 7-11. Paul Garrin, a New Yorkâbased video artist-activist known for his confrontational style, promoted a series of projects, including an alternative DNS authority, and hijacked <nettime>'s subscriber base for his own short-lived "<nettime.free>" list. And, throughout these years, a shadowy procession of seemingly 24/7 always-on entities variously known as antiorp, =cw4t7abs, integer, and netochka nezvanova (or "nn") assailed <nettime> and other forums with astonishing messages that combined furious bile, ASCII art-inspired deconstructions, and scathing and often-brilliant critiques of authoritarianism â as well as promotions of his/her/their software. These tensions were addressed by switching to moderation mode, a function that is baked into the mailing-list software. But since there were no clear rules for how to moderate, and rejected messages remained invisible, this led to acrimonious debates about "censorship" and a brief experiment with an "unfiltered" version of the list, <nettime-bold>. Varied proposals for how the selection process (and of course who is doing the selecting) could be made more flexible and spontaneous were advance â for example, by changing platforms from a mailing list to something else in order to allow subscribers to do their own idiosyncratic "text filtering" â but nothing ever came of them. A third tension arose early on, which the <nettime> collectivity has never found adequate ways to overcome: gender bias. Nettime has always been very male â not necessarily in terms of its subscriber base but certainly in terms of its communication culture. There was quite a bit of overlap between <nettime> and early cyberfeminism (including the "faces" email list), but the collectivity never found adequate ways to provide an environment for explicit, sustained feminist discourses. And, to the extent that feminist and gender-oriented ideas have played a pivotal role in broader liberationist movements around the world, this tacit weakness has marginalized <nettime> as a resource for younger activists. <nettime> is far from unique in this regard: the difficulty of addressing often implicit and unacknowledged biases is a key weakness of the informal mode of voluntary organisation, offline and online (from free software communities to Wikipedia). Within <nettime> this problem has been widely recognized and periodically acknowledged (for example, with citations of Jo Freedman's classic 1971 text "The Tyranny of Structurelessness"), but this has never translated into substantial practical change. In retrospect, it's not surprising that debates in <nettime>'s milieu would anticipate many of the basic operations that underpin the follow/like economies of social media. However, and particularly in the context of narcissistic hyperdifferentiation that defines "social media," it was fortunate that <nettime>'s moderation wasn't splintered. Rather than relying on a system of technically implemented (and therefore enforced) differentiation, an open collectivity communicates in a unified environment where everyone is equidistant. In <nettime<'s case, it proved to be much more fluid and able to negotiate imprecise shifts in taste and attention. It was this implicit vagueness that gave <nettime> a supple adaptability that many other collective ventures lost in the ensuing strife. Crisis Intervention: the bombing of Serbia (1999) All of these debates faded quickly into the background once NATO started to bomb Serbia on March 24, 1999. As is often the case, mass media on all side shifted into propaganda mode. (See also Veran Matic's text in this volume.) <nettime> suddenly turned into a channel in which people on the receiving end of the bombing campaign, the members of the collectivity who lived in Belgrade, reported the terrifying facts in near-real time. This provided an important counterbalance to the media narratives, which were dominated by the video-feeds from "smart" bombs and their implied ideology of a "clean" war. The reach of these dispatches from the ground was considerably farther than just the list itself, since several members of the collectivity in the West worked in the media and used this material in their stories. At certain critical times, the feedback loops established through <nettime> were much quicker and more accurate than those provided by major news providers such as CNN. Retrospectively, this was a pioneering moment for both "citizen journalism" and "real-time crisis monitoring," two functions are now separated into blogging and derivative "micro" platforms such as Twitter. At the time, though, they hadn't yet been articulated as such and were still unified within email. At the end of an extremely intensive period, in which the collectivity had to learn to cope with the relentless and intimate reporting of the dirty realities of war among friends who suddenly found themselves on different sides, the collectivity was exhausted. Though shortly after, energizing events took place in the streets of Seattle and set off another short summer, that of the anti-globalisation movement which had forced its way onto the global stage, drawing heavily on the new modes of horizontal communication provided the Internet. The Long Bust: the dot.com crash, 9/11, and the lure of social media. (2000â2008) The bursting of the bubble of Internet stocks in in March 2000, signaled the end of the first irrational exuberance of the Internet. Things got considerably worse in the following year. The brutal police crackdown of the massive protests against the G8-Meeting in Genoa Italy in July 2001 was a turning point in the state's response to the antiglobalization movement. A few months later, the events of 9/11 not only caught the important New York-based contingent of the collectivity up close, but it soon became apparent that this would not only lead to new wars abroad, but also to new repression at home and surveillance of online communication. While the champions of the Californian ideology rebounded from the shock of the stock market with a new label, Web 2.0 and, soon afterward "social media," the mood within the collectivity remained dark. The new developments were quickly analyzed as a profound reengineering of the Internet infrastructure away from the early decentralized designs towards new centralized platforms firmly in the hand of (venture) capital. The fact that in early days of social-media investors were happy to sustain losses in exchange of market share, barely obscured the new power-relations that were being implemented. The arrest of Critical Art Ensemble's Steve Kurtz, an important voice in technoculture in the US and Europe, in May of 2004 was significant in its own right and also symptomatic of the increasingly humorless and violent view the state and corporations were taking to the domain of media activism. After Kurtz's wife died unexpectedly of a heart attack, emergency workers interpreted the scientific materials in Kurtz's home in the worst possible light and called in federal law enforcement agencies. He was subjected to a years-long prosecution for criminal mail and wire fraud under the USA PATRIOT Act. It showed to many that criticial cultural practice, as Konrad Becker put it at the time, "does in fact touch the nerve of occult power in the techno state" â even (maybe especially) when it operates on a purely semiotic level. The overblown repression of a critic of the techno-political power system now appears as a precursor of the stepped-up repression of hackers and journalists surrounding WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and other renegades. During those years, <nettime> was declared dead several times. In some ways, then, it's surprising that the list, rather than fading away, shifted gears toward deeper historical analyses of the networked condition â notably, Brian Holmes's essays on history and transformations of cybernetics. By now, one consequence of moderation and its strictly voluntary mode was becoming clearer. The new social media intensified the speed and sheer volume of communication, making message lengths shorter and visual content ever more pivotal; above all, reaction became the dominant currency. <nettime> by contrast, moved in the opposite direction â mainly by not changing at all. Moderation necessarily involves a delay, which, given the contingent nature of collective efforts, could be as little as a few minutes or as much as a few days, depending on circumstances. Far from being an obstacle, though, this often introduced a slight (and manipulable) lag to exchanges on the list, which allowed time for reflection in reading and writing rather than reaction. Discussion threads extended over days, sometimes weeks, and often would be taken up again at a later point. The fact that each member had a local copy of the list's conversation in his or her email folder (in addition to the online archive) provided the collectivity with a sense of its own history and allowed for an uneven accumulation of collective references and knowledge. Living the crisis: the return of the (un)real (2008â) Two events cast into sharp relief some of the basic concerns that have been important to <nettime>'s collectivity from the beginning â and showed the brutally bare extremes that power structures would impose in order to preserve their privilege, even at the cost of never-ending and expanding crisis. First, the catastrophic effects of financialization as a core element of neoliberalism and the willingsness of the state intervene on behalf of "too-big-to-fail" banks became shockingly apparent in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown. And second, the blanket surveillance of military-communication complex relies on to detect and contain social unrest which was made public by the leaks of Edward Snowden starting in 2013. Such issues that had been staples of <nettime>'s discussions â the role and shape of infrastructures, the materiality of politics, the continuities and transformations of capitalism, the possibilities of resistance and imagination of radical alternatives â and suddenly, they found mainstream resonance. Particularly in the wake of 2008, as cultural funding dried up in many countries, <nettime>'s no-money collectivity model has proven to be resilient and sustainable. In some ways, the double crisis that marks the second decade of our century, is bringing <nettime> back to its roots. And intense interest in socio-technical infrastructures and understanding social critique that is fits the current social transformation needs not only theoretical tools, but also new forms of organisation. It is, perhaps, this twin concern, more than anything else, that has motivated the collectivity for such a long time. Whether it remains capable of generating substantive contributions to this distributed efforts that takes place in many contexts and modes around the world remains an open question. Some serious and absolutely legitimate criticisms â many of which hadn't been voiced on the list in years, in some cases because their advocates had long ago given up â were summarized in an April Fool's prank in 2015, in which we announced that we were closing the list: <nettime> has been 'graying.' It's wedded to a particular Euro-American moment, the so-called summer of the Internet, which has since turned to winter. Nettime's once-radical embrace of the ex-East â or, if you like, of the ex-West â barely extends to Hungary now, and has nothing to say to the decisive conflicts around Russia's bordersâ. Its early tacit prohibition on ritualized debates about Israel and Palestine has grown into a complete failure to address the profoundly important dynamics across parts of the world conventionally â and reductively â called 'Muslim' or 'Arab.' These areas are too often consigned to the 'timelessness' of conflict, but there's every reason to believe that their liberatory struggles could ultimately define the future of the 'WEIRD' nations. China? Barely a peep about it. Africa? Nettime is nowheresville. The seas, the skies, the circulatory flows? Nada. And how about nongeographical 'areas' where the most moving cultural changes are happening â in the flowerings of new forms of subjectivity around the world and the new forms of sovereignty they're giving rise to. Silence. But, really, who cares what a bunch of straight white cis guys â which is 95% of the list's traffic â think about those things? We formulated these criticisms in the context of a failed effort to stage a new and different <nettime> meeting: farther east than before, and with a renewed emphasis on learning about where and how (and maybe when) activist efforts had migrated â efforts that were media-savvy yet ignored in mainstream media. The list's flexibility, and the 'equidistance' we noted earlier, limit participants' ability (and probably their motivation) to act collectively. And, of course, <nettime> also shares other serious weaknesses with media-activist efforts, sometimes very literally. The list's reliance on noncommercial and volunteer resources have also made it vulnerable in basic respects. At times, its minimal infrastructure depended on servers shared with more radical members â for example, eToy, the Yes Men, and Ricardo Dominguez's "Floodnet." When their more radical activities led upstream ISPs to shut these servers down, <nettime> (along with many other projects and people) came under direct threat. More recently, its lack of organizational resources has prevented it from incorporating resources like Twitter and Facebook, which are widely seen as essential organizational tools. These weaknesses run the risk of letting <nettime> drift even deeper into its own peculiarity â as Morlock Elloi, a stauch pseudonymous in the collectivity, put it in late 2015 â to become just another group of "self-similar[s] in faraway land," where like-minded people substitute their irrelevance for the joy of being together. The list's waning emphasis on face-to-face meetings and media-activist actions might be a symptom that the list was becoming increasingly "bourgie" â which it no doubt was, to a certain extent. It also reflected the aging demographic of <nettime>'s core members â for example, their growing concern with stable professional jobs (particularly in arts-oriented segments of academic), raising children, and so on. Whatever the cause, there's no doubt that less emphasis on face-to-face meetings has also diminished the spontaneity and force the collectivity would be capable of. The question of how to articulate and navigate shifting, contingent relationships between continuity and transformation, which has always been central to <nettime>'s success, remains at the fore. Four time, the collectivity has managed to re-attune itself to changing circumstances. Whether it can continue to respond in flexible and relevant ways to newer conditions â and, crucially, to attract younger contributors â is very much an open question. 13.1 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim Jaromil nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:35:29 +0100 so good!!! thanks! this text comes timely and is a motivating read. recently you noticed i started being around nettime more often... this little historical text here is a great milestone and feels also very inclusive. I approve and always recommend recommend making less individual names, but perhaps more organization names, to support what everyone of us is doing in different but well attuned directions for which nettime seems to be a methronome. So I'm happy if Dyne.org can fit somewhere there, but I have no idea where really. I was recently rather upset at hearing and reading Geert going around to call himself the "founder of nettime". Then rather than that, perhaps his INC initiative also deserves a quote in the text. ciao 13.2 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim prem . cnt nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:41:57 +0530 > On 4 Nov 2015, at 9:23 a.m., Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com> wrote: > The crucial intervention so far has been the unprecedented injection of some 12 trillion USD into the global monetary system by central banks, which know very well what each other are doing. The next crucial intervention will be to actually *do* something coherent with that money. Global volumes of currency trading alone are in the order of 5.3 trillion USD per day. What capacity do the central banks of the world have to substantively influence the overall system? 13.3 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim David Garcia nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:07:23 +0000 Great to once again be able to tune in to Brian's imaginative sweep. Just to add to Brian's example below important but informal collaborations connected to nettime I would definitely add all (except edition 1) editions of Next 5 Minutes festivals of Tactical Media. Nettime acted like an important additional room in which the issues that informed the content of the festival sometimes sourced, debated and developed. In the last edition the content development was disegregated and developed through Tactical Media labs (TML) in various countries. I'll just recall one because it left an interesting legacy which still feels potent. Its the NYU TML took place in the heart of the city shortly after 9/11 and so of course the and its organisors were still reeeling and the planned event had to (in every sense) pivot. The result was a so called Virtual Casebook in which many regular nettime contributors (and many more who were not) generated a series of responces to the attack which, whatever its limitations, still represents a collective snapshot of that moment refracted through the subjectivities of this community (yes I dare to use the C word). In my opinion remains a valuable way to re-connect to that moment. Its sill worth re-visiting as a snapshot in time: https://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/case_911_FLASHcontent.html "From the beginning, <nettime> served as an environment for experimentation with the new medium and, beyond that, as a collaborative platform to prepare publications outside of it." In terms of publication, Ted and Felix are firstly talking about the "Zentralkomittee" readers that were published in the early days of nettime. But there is a more informal and sometimes unacknowledged type of collaborative writing that emerges from this kind of list, which is also worth some attention. For example, "my" texts on cybernetics in the mid-2000s were to a certain degree products of list-wide debates, as I usually indicated somewhere in the footnotes to the published versions. I also had the great experience of launching a collaborative project on the subject of Technopolitics through mailing-list exchanges with Armin Medosch and others (that project didn't actually start here, but nettime has been the most important venue for written debate about those issues). I would be curious to know if some others have had interesting experiences with this type of informal collaboration? David Garcia 13.4 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim Eric Kluitenberg nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:20:35 +0100 Dear nettimers, It feels a bit awkward to respond in this thread as the co-editor of the anthology this text is going to be part of, where I think the text is going to be a great contribution, a fascinating account of twenty years of <nettime> from a first-hand perspective. However, I am deeply intrigued by the remarks Brian made about a `third-order cybernetics' and his call to start figuring this new order out (a 'third age of net-critique' as he calls it). This is what I want to respond to here. The anthology we are putting together is part of a larger project, on-going under a mundane working title 'tactical media connections', with the aim of connecting different generations of activists, artists, theorists, discourses and practices between the classic era of tactical media and current practices and conditions, with the hope of developing a more informed perspective to move into the future. The project has been introduced on the list so will not dwell on this further. One of the things which is on my mind with this project is to raise the question: "What kind of interventions are required right now?", assuming that we are in the post-#occupy and post-prism era. For a variety of reasons we have seen that the various `occupy' quasi-movements (formations) have failed, unable to transform themselves into somehow coherent and potent political forces (in part because of their over-reliance on the play on affective registers), with the possible exception of Spain as also indicated in the thread started by Alex Foti ("What if we were all right but all wrong?"), which runs interestingly parallel to this one. And the post-prism condition need not really be explained - the confirmation of our worst nightmares about the extent of the electronic surveillance apparatus that dwarfs all sci-fi phantasies that may have preceded the Snowden Files disclosures. So, what does `intervention' mean in this context? Does it still make sense to think and talk about this at all? How could intervention be conceived of as somehow meaningful, viable, efficacious (able to produce desired results)? What strikes me, but comes as no real surprise, is the clear presence of the recent work that science and political philosopher Bruno Latour has been doing on what he calls "Facing Gaia", and what Brian refers to as `Earth-system' (see: [1]http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/487 ). This comes as no surprise because Brian and I discussed this in private conversations, and also because his recent work with the Compass group in the Mid-West region (around Chicago) takes up the challenge of thinking through the meaning of this notion of `general ecology' - see: [2]http://midwestcompass.org/. The crucial point here, in my view, is the boundedness of these global transformations Brian is referencing by our existence on Earth, the planet as a system of interdependent parts, and the finiteness of resources available to and within this system. As Latour also observes in one of his recent lectures, the prospect of the human species (or a future Ark of Noah carrying the biological diversity of the planet) embarking on an exodus into space to new `Earth-like' worlds has been emphatically referred to the realm of fiction by calculations of the amount of energy and resources required to ship even a tiny segment of the Earth's current population to the nearest inhabitable worlds, which makes the entire exercise an entirely laughable fiction. It equally reduces the chance of us ever being visited by some remote superior extraterrestrial civilisation (that can solve our problems) to zero. In short: We are Earth-bound. Philosopher and aesthetician Jean-Francois Lyotard once observed that the avant-garde arts share with the techno-sciences and advanced capitalism an `affinity with infinity': the infinite ability to see, the infinite ability to know, and the infinite ability to realise / make / produce. This dictum no longer holds true. We are coming up to final limits, material and ecological. They are drawing ever closer and given the rapid material developments in the so-called emerging economies with exponential speed. The horizon is no longer that of the infinity of the avant-gardes, techno-sciences, and advanced capitalism, but instead the finiteness of the Earth's material and ecological resources. This imposes clear limits on the scope and extension of third-order cybernetics and the new modes of global governance (or non-governance) that accompany this new order. Latour develops his thinking along a simple line: he considers these systems as being designed by someone, some groups, some agencies, and that to attune them with boundedness imposed by the Earth-system we need to re-design these systems. The discipline of `design' (in a broad sense) then takes center stage in the process of what he has described ever since his 2004 book 'Politics of Nature' as `the progressive composition of the good common world'. This book is interesting here because it was written in response to the stagnation of green politics in Europe and elsewhere, so with the book he also put the question on the table; what kind of intervention is required now? - in his case in response to a perceived crisis of green politics. `Design' for Latour is crucial because it introduces among other things, an attention to detail. When dealing with largest possible systems, and especially when facing the largest of them all, the Earth-system (Facing Gaia), attention has to shift according to Latour to the smallest possible details, and intervention has to emerge at the microscopic level of re-design and subsequently scale up to the macro-level in a process of collective experimentation. Such a process can only begin with a clear and critical analysis of the `design' of 'third-order cybernetics, and all this clearly exceeds the frame of the tactical media book as such. It does however suggest a clear call for at least one particular intervention in response to this question that has been haunting me since at the very least the beginning of this tactical media connections trajectory (but actually much longer), what kind of interventions are required now? Whatever you call it, a `third age of net-critique', a critical examination of the design of third-order cybernetics, figuring out the post-anarcho-llbertarian condition, this is certainly an important and challenging suggestion to take up. The next steps then already clearly indicate themselves: How can one imagine such processes of re-design, at what levels, through which practices? What are the roles that activists, artists, theorists can assume there? And how can these things be put into practice? (politics) Amidst the gloom we can see hopeful beginnings, the theories and practices of the commons that rely on scalable and self-sustaining community based systems of exchange, co-operation and governance. The transference of principles of free software to open content and free culture production, the experiments with distributed currency and transaction systems - but none of them and also not combined are enough to produce a viable counter-veilling force to what Brian has so nicely described as third-order cybernetics. One possibility is of course simply not to act, at least not initially, and wait for these systems to collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions (the crash-scenario). I very much oppose this view, the damage and the amount of suffering this would produce are unimaginable and the whole point of critique and (attempts at) re-design is to avoid exactly this scenario. It is the failure of `global governance', in as far as such a thing exists at all, that it is unable to address the ravages of this impending new order and so we cannot resign ourselves to either only re-design on the microlevel, nor to the design of self-sustaining communities, let alone to inertia while waiting for the crash. The critical analysis / deconstruction of this impending order can be a step one towards developing (`designing') new and efficacious forms of intervention - that I see as a clear and potentially productive suggestion. ------ Then a final practical note: we are participating in some debates and with a workshop with the tactical media connections project in the upcoming edition of Transmediale (Feb. 3 - 7, 2016). We will also use this opportunity of the festival as a gathering place to hold an informal meeting during the festival, exact date and time still need to be determined as soon as the overall festival schedule is fixed. Much in the tradition of the nettime meet ups that are referenced in Ted's and Felix's text. It would be great to see people there and debate about these and other ideas. We'll post details also here and on our blogs when we know place, date, time, but as stated in the text such physical meet ups are extremely important so we hope we can have a more direct exchange there. bests, eric On 04 Nov 2015, at 04:53, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com> wrote: As noted last April Fools', there will be good reasons for fresh conceptual collaborations in the future. The neoliberal order with its bewildering anarcho-libertarian ideology is on the way out. We are headed toward a new state-form based on third-order cybernetics, or general ecology, in which finely grained data on global populations will be used to repress those populations, but also to facilitate and channel behaviors more adaptive to the overall earth system. As resource use continues to grow, survival issues will increasingly make earth-system dynamics into an ultimate reference point, directly present and determinant for all experience, yet not susceptible of direct control. This leads to fundamental epistemological shifts, with many cascading effects on human-machine combinations (we cyborgs, I mean). (...) However, I think that key aspects of the coming round of global development will be orchestrated by the new inter-state/inter-imperialist order, in order to coordinate production/consumption and provide earth-system level services for all included populations. Who will do this? A consortium of countries including China. Whether the US or the EU will be part of it, I don't know. In short, the 21st century is not likely to be your grandpa's political economy! I don't expect any recognizable pattern to become visible for a decade or more; but it is likely that that the decisive breakthroughs of the future are actually being invented right now, without us knowing it. First-order cybernetics was analyzed, critiqued and subverted in the Sixties and Seventies, and second-order forms were at the heart of our concerns in the Nineties and the Noughties. Don't you think a Third Age of net-critique is dawning? Who wants to have a go at that one? curiously, Brian *** Cybernetics essays ("Dark Crystals" section): https://brianholmes.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/book-materials Two forks of Technopolitics: http://www.thenextlayer.org/technopolitics_group http://threecrises.org <...> 13.5 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim Brian Holmes nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:36:53 -0600 By providing freshly printed and essentially free money to private banks (sometimes even foreign banks, in the US case) governments were able to stop cascading failures and halt any drift toward a great depression. In China a huge infrastructure program was undertaken. In Japan money has been funneled directly to consumers. In Europe, the EU bailout of nationalized banking sectors has concentrated tremendous new power in Brussels. The global currency markets are not coordinated. States, to the contrary, pursue geo-economic grand strategies, that's the big difference. 13.6 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim Jaromil nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:26:17 +0100 On Thu, 05 Nov 2015, John Hopkins wrote: > I'm wondering if there are any deeper stats available -- in > retrospect -- such as subscriber numbers over time; posts over time, > etc... My email archive shows 22600 entries ... but I had a few gaps > of some months over the course of the almost 20 years... I could easily produce some stats (using Jaro Mail, ehehe) but my current archive goes back only to 31 March 2011 without scavenging in backups. Here below a quick graph made using the last 3893 messages, I believe I'm breaking no privacy in reposting all strings that have already appeared in the From: fields I think Patrice deserves a mention as most prolific contributor by far I wonder what are the all time totals, I believe he can make it. 1 # > ! 1 # ! 1 # 0 1 # 010 1 # 12 list 1 # 1wswlh+5d4cycrrfldx4 1 # 646 DJ KUNAL 1 # A 1 # aakasa 1 # Aaron.Smith 1 # abdulaziz.mohammed 1 # abner preis 1 # actor 1 # adam 1 # adam hyde 1 # Adelino Zanini 1 # Adhari Donora 1 # admin 1 # ADRI 1 # afuma 1 # agostino.petrillo 1 # Aicha Visser 1 # aindriu macfehin 1 # air-l 1 # A.J. Keen 1 # Alann de Vuyst 1 # albert 1 # Alberto Cossu 1 # Alberto D'Ottavi 1 # Alberto Martinelli 1 # Albino Russo 1 # alblicker 1 # aldje 1 # Aldje van Meer 1 # aldo bassoni 1 # Aleks 1 # alessandra 1 # alessandro.caliandro 1 # Alessandro Gandini 1 # Alessandro Ludovico 1 # alex 1 # ALexander Geijzendorffer 1 # Alexander Kostenko 1 # Alexandra Sobiech 1 # alexandre.aragao 1 # Alexandre Leray 1 # Alex Halavais 1 # Alex Leach 1 # Allister Clisham 1 # Al Matthews 1 # almud 1 # Amin Zayani 1 # ana 1 # anahi 1 # Ana Isabel Carvalho 1 # Ana Peraica 1 # Ana Viseu 1 # Anders KjÃrulff 1 # Andrea Mayr 1 # Andrea Sesta 1 # Andreas Jacobs 1 # andre castro 1 # Andrian Georgiev 1 # andries 1 # angela.mcrobbie 1 # Angela Plohman 1 # Angelica Della Torre 1 # angelica.kaminsky 1 # Anke Asselman 1 # Anko Bos 1 # Anna Borcherding 1 # anna.hennebole 1 # annakovesdi 1 # Anne Julie Arnfred 1 # Anne Marie Hazenberg 1 # Annemarie Staaks 1 # Annemieke vander Hoek 1 # annemie van der zanden 1 # annemtly 1 # Annette Wolfsberger | Sonic... 1 # anouk 1 # antoinettejcitizen 1 # Antonio 1 # Antonio A. Casilli 1 # anton vidokle 1 # Antti JÃinen 1 # app-art-award 1 # Appy 1 # Aram Bartholl 1 # archive 1 # argha mahendra 1 # arjan 1 # arjen 1 # Arjen van Veelen 1 # armbrusterik 1 # ARNOVA-L 1 # Art - Eastern Bloc 1 # Artpool Art Research Center 1 # Arun Kumar 1 # ashkan.soltani 1 # asterides 1 # atrowbri 1 # Audrey Brisack 1 # audrey samson 1 # avlmeuad 1 # awards 1 # Bas de Lange 1 # Bas van Heur 1 # bbrewer 1 # bcomnes 1 # beata szechy 1 # beliz.escapist 1 # beltrandmarco 1 # Ben Birkinbine 1 # Benedict Seymour 1 # Ben Jack 1 # bernhard bauch 1 # Bernhard Garnicnig 1 # Bernhard Rieder 1 # bert 1 # betaalbewijzen 1 # Bezdomny Dotcom 1 # bheilbrunn 1 # biella 1 # billbacon 1 # Bill Stewart 1 # Birchall 1 # birgi 1 # Bishop Z 1 # Bishop Zareh 1 # Bitsy Knox 1 # bk 1 # black 1 # _blank 1 # b.niessen 1 # bob_meininger 1 # 'Boehm 1 # bof-nieuws-request 1 # Bojan Endrovski 1 # Bonnie Dumanaw 1 # Boyd Seltenrijch 1 # Bradshaw 1 # brenno 1 # Brian Degger 1 # brian.holmes 1 # brigitta isabella 1 # broegger 1 # bsteenweg 1 # Burak Arikan 1 # Burcu Baykurt 1 # bureau 1 # buzzwolves 1 # CALLIGARO Victoria 1 # capri gondola venezia 1 # captain.asthma 1 # cardboard boks 1 # Carl Guderian 1 # Carl McKinney 1 # carlo von lynX 1 # Carolien Ligtenberg 1 # Carolin Gerlitz 1 # carvalho.aisabel 1 # caspar 1 # castervermoortece 1 # Cathy Brickwood 1 # cbrickwood 1 # cdycede 1 # Celia Lury 1 # center 1 # CÃsare Peeren 1 # cest.elisa 1 # cfp 1 # cfp-admin 1 # Charley Fiedeldij Dop 1 # charlie derr 1 # Charlie Derr 1 # charline stoelzaed 1 # chilon 1 # chr 1 # chris 1 # chris christiaansz ungerer 1 # Chris Csikszentmihalyi 1 # Chris Leslie 1 # chris sugrue 1 # christabolier 1 # Christian Fonnesbech 1 # Christian Gagneraud 1 # christian waber 1 # christine 1 # chris.tuppen 1 # Chris van der Meulen 1 # Cindy Iseli 1 # ciperimbaud 1 # ckerdranvat 1 # ClÃudia Amorim 1 # Claudia Pederson 1 # claus 1 # ClGn 1 # clyons206 1 # Co-creations Teun den Dekker 1 # cold 1 # Colm O'Neill 1 # commoning {AT} listen.jpberlin.de 1 # connect 1 # Consular Amsterdam 1 # contactform 1 # coty.ampt 1 # create 1 # cselkirk 1 # Cultureel ContactPunt Neder... 1 # cvecchio 1 # cyphermkultra 1 # daniel 1 # Daniela Tagliaferro 1 # Daniele Dalli 1 # Daniel Gonzalez Gasull 1 # Daniel Pietrosemoli 1 # daniel rubinstein 1 # Dan O'Huiginn 1 # dapx 1 # darkcrimson 1 # darlaine heitinga 1 # david 1 # david d'heilly 1 # davide.cassaro 1 # David Griffiths 1 # david.hansen.fo 1 # David Herzog 1 # david leonard 1 # David Raison 1 # dean 1 # Debora TORTORA 1 # Debra Solomon 1 # defconoii 1 # delosbueis 1 # Denise Chotoo 1 # deniz unal 1 # Dennis de Bel 1 # DE PLAYER/Peter Fengler 1 # derek.eder+de 1 # dettevanzeeland 1 # dgerritsen 1 # Diana Ford 1 # diego.rinallo 1 # dierck roosen 1 # discussion 1 # diva_65 1 # Dmytri Kleiner/ Friends . 1 # Dmytri Kleiner/ Friends. 1 # dna 1 # doma 1 # Domenico Quaranta 1 # dominic.power 1 # Donatella 1 # donna 1 # dougeasterly 1 # Doug La Rocca 1 # Douglass Carmichael 1 # doung 1 # dsi.ikl 1 # dtr.vndrn 1 # dusan 1 # dutch.atheist 1 # Dylan Hallegraeff 1 # e 1 # ebay 1 # EBo 1 # ebracadebra 1 # echna 1 # ed 1 # Ed Clive 1 # eddo stern 1 # Eddo Stern 1 # eddy.salfischberger 1 # Eduardo Navas 1 # edufactory 1 # ed wullink 1 # eero 1 # Egid van Houtem 1 # egregiusforthespammers 1 # eightycolumn 1 # eightycolumn-owner 1 # eightycolumn-request 1 # elc.ikl 1 # elena 1 # elena.caphe 1 # Elena Gajate 1 # Elger Jonker 1 # Eline Jongsma 1 # elisabethboersma 1 # ellen 1 # elodie.delaigle 1 # e-mail 1 # Emanuela Ciuffoli 1 # Emile 1 # emiliogaliacho 1 # equisigriegazeta 1 # eric 1 # eric den hartigh 1 # erich.berger 1 # Eric Schrijver 1 # Erika Biddle 1 # Erik Overmeire 1 # ernie 1 # Erwin Verbruggen 1 # ESF 1 # esf-l-and-g 1 # esther.ton 1 # Etienne Grenier 1 # Eugenia Laghezza 1 # e.vanthart 1 # Eve Dullaart 1 # Evelyn Austin 1 # Evelyn Grooten 1 # evildaan 1 # ewen 1 # e.wise.be 1 # fablab 1 # fan 1 # farchanfirmansyah 1 # fcforum 1 # fcforum_discussion 1 # fcforum_info 1 # fedde 1 # feedback 1 # Felix Bohatsch - And Yet It... 1 # Femke Snelting 1 # Fenwick Mckelvey 1 # Ferdinando Fasce 1 # fernandawonen 1 # FF8E7F55-4419-4F24-B3EE-618... 1 # Fil 1 # Findeisen Andreas Leo 1 # fiona.davies {AT} ozemail.com.au 1 # firestarter 1 # fish 1 # Florian Kuhlmann 1 # florian.weigl 1 # fm99 1 # folkert 1 # fons 1 # [FP Publishing] 1 # francesco monico 1 # Fran Ilich 1 # frank 1 # frank.20.tigrero 1 # fredd 1 # Frederick [FN] Noronha * Ã.. 1 # Frederick FN Noronha 1 # Frederick FN Noronha ??????... 1 # fred_machintruc 1 # Freek van Polen 1 # Frode Markhus 1 # froysland 1 # furtherfield 1 # f vandenboom 1 # fyoelk 1 # g 1 # G 1 # g7e6re 1 # Gabriella Biella Coleman 1 # Gabriella Coleman 1 # Gaby Jenks 1 # Gaia Bernasconi 1 # gamefonds mediafonds 1 # Gando Antalcia 1 # gareth.foote 1 # Gary . Farnell 1 # gazz 1 # geert 1 # Geerten Eijkelenboom 1 # gele 1 # general 1 # george 1 # gerardo richarte 1 # Gerard Zaan 1 # geyva71 1 # gijs 1 # Gijsbert Koren 1 # Gijsbregt Brouwer 1 # Giulia Laura Ferrari 1 # Glendon Jones 1 # G Lucas 1 # g.mckl91 1 #  gonzo ! 1 # GOTT 1 # Gottfried Haider 1 # Graham Meikle 1 # grant 1 # Greenhost Helpdesk 1 # Greg 1 # Greg Elmer 1 # greg.fisher 1 # groente 1 # grrrt 1 # grund 1 # Guido Jelsma 1 # GÃn Belà 1 # h3xl3r 1 # halina89 1 # Hamada Tadahisa 1 # hamidppp 1 # Hamilton 1 # Hank Bull 1 # hannah 1 # Hans Abbink 1 # Hans Bernhard 1 # Hans Christian Voigt 1 # Hans de Zwart 1 # Hans Lammerant (Vredesactie) 1 # haqsara 1 # Harco Rutgers 1 # harlan levey 1 # harma 1 # Harwood 1 # Hasan Bakhshi 1 # havoc 1 # hazmukali 1 # Heather Dewey-Hagborg 1 # Hedi Legerstee 1 # Heiko 1 # helen evans 1 # Helge Peters 1 # hellekin {AT} riseup.net 1 # hello | florian kuhlmann 1 # henmi 1 # Henning-stout 1 # hensen16 1 # hi 1 # hiya me 1 # honza 1 # honzasvasek 1 # Hoofd 1 # hope 1 # house 1 # hpassarello 1 # hsnlbestuurders 1 # hubmeeting 1 # huynenjl 1 # h w 1 # h.walgenbach 1 # Iain Boal 1 # ian helliwell 1 # Ian Paul 1 # Ibrahim Quraishi 1 # icsauerlodder 1 # idealnigrad 1 # ie 1 # ihoonte 1 # ilich 1 # image001.png 1 # Image Science 1 # Imaginary Museum projects T... 1 # imaitland 1 # imanolgo 1 # incumbent 1 # info-maasdelta 1 # info ZEMOS98.org 1 # inge 1 # ingejanse 1 # Internet Society Nederland 1 # Intl Network 1 # Irene Agrivine 1 # irene.dm 1 # irme 1 # i.roos 1 # isabella maria wohlwend 1 # Isabelle Arvers 1 # Ismael Touq 1 # =?iso-8859-1?Q?'antonella.c... 1 # ivan 1 # Ivan Knapp 1 # ivo 1 # ivonne 1 # ivo.vdmaagdenberg 1 # Iwan Smit 1 # izabelrainer 1 # jaco 1 # Jacopo Natoli 1 # Jacqueline Oerlemans 1 # Jakob Rigi 1 # James Losey 1 # jangeertmunneke 1 # jan hendrik brueggemeier 1 # Jan Kempf 1 # Janna Michael 1 # Janneke Staarink 1 # JanPaul.de.Ridder 1 # Jan Peter Larsen 1 # jans 1 # jantien 1 # Jan Wildeboer 1 # Jan Willem Nijman 1 # Jarl Schulp 1 # Jaroslaw Lipszyc 1 # jasperniens 1 # jaspersnauwaert90 1 # jedh 1 # Jeffrey Cafferata 1 # Jeffrey fisher 1 # Jeffrey Warren 1 # Jelke van der Sande 1 # Jelle van der Molen 1 # Jessian Choy 1 # Jessica Tatlock 1 # jessika 1 # jhbdamen 1 # jhopkins 1 # jhuebner 1 # jildou 1 # Jim Ying 1 # Jiskar Schmitz 1 # jjmenting 1 # jnm 1 # jnmnsn 1 # Joakim HÃllstrÃm 1 # Jo Anne Green 1 # jobtenbosch 1 # JODI 1 # Joe 1 # JoelleDietrick 1 # Joe Lockard 1 # joerlemans 1 # Johannes Auer 1 # Johan SÃderberg 1 # JOHN GRANT 1 # john.m.bowers 1 # johnnynenuco 1 # Jonatan SÃderstrÃm 1 # jonathan 1 # jonathan.smits 1 # jonathan.winter 1 # Jon Eirik Lundberg 1 # joostharteveld 1 # Joost Heijthuijsen 1 # Jorge Rojas 1 # Jorinde Seijdel 1 # joris 1 # Joris Bennink 1 # Joris van Wijk 1 # jorn 1 # jortogar 1 # jose 1 # josef.glanz 1 # Josephine Bosma 1 # Joseph Nechvatal 1 # Joshua Breitbart 1 # Joshua Wise 1 # Juana Romero 1 # Juerd Waalboer 1 # julian 1 # Julie Boschat Thorez 1 # Just Boon 1 # Justin F 1 # kaizen 1 # kaliumhyperoxide 1 # Kamiel Verschuren 1 # Karla Brunet 1 # kashirin.victor 1 # kateclarkprojects 1 # Kath O'Donnell 1 # Kaustubh Srikanth 1 # Keith J. Sanborn 1 # Kelly O'Neill 1 # ker 1 # Kermit Snelson 1 # kevin carter 1 # Kicken.nicken 1 # kimasendorf 1 # kingvidbina 1 # kirsty.a.hall 1 # Kitty Calis 1 # Klaartje Bult - SICA 1 # klaus 1 # klitsiou 1 # knowledgelab 1 # kontakt |Âflorian kuhlmann 1 # Korinna Patelis 1 # koroshiya1 1 # Kris Cohen 1 # kristina 1 # kristine 1 # Kristine Ploug 1 # Kunal / Loud Objects 1 # Kyle Machulis 1 # labofii 1 # Lanfranco Aceti 1 # Larissa Hildebrandt 1 # Lars Ove Toft 1 # laslo 1 # LAURA LOTTI 1 # lauramarialappi 1 # Laurent Giacobino 1 # Lawton Hall 1 # lazas88 1 # Lee 1 # Lee Worden 1 # lennaart 1 # Lennaart van Oldenborgh 1 # leon 1 # leon.morrison 1 # lepelsnijdery 1 # Le Sophie 1 # lex 1 # l.f.b.gommans 1 # l frijhoff 1 # lgiacobino 1 # lgru 1 # lgru-bounces 1 # lgru-owner 1 # lgru-request 1 # libre-graphics-meeting 1 # Lieven Van Speybroeck 1 # Lilia Gomez Flores 1 # lilil 1 # Lincoln Cushing 1 # lincoln dahlberg 1 # line 1 # Line Nord // USF Verftet 1 # lisek 1 # Liselore Goedhart 1 # list 1 # listeke-request 1 # listentomerijn 1 # list|marianne 1 # liuyan datong 1 # Liz Moor 1 # loathsome toad 1 # local 1 # londonbranchfeedback 1 # lorenzormgnl 1 # Lori Emerson 1 # LoVid LoVid 1 # lovric 1 # lschwartz6 1 # Luca Barbeni 1 # Luciana Duranti 1 # Luigi La Fauci 1 # Luisa Leonini 1 # lumena_atherton 1 # Lunenfeld 1 # Lurwah 1 # luuk 1 # m 1 # M 1 # Maartje Dijkstra 1 # macamilenkovic72 1 # magda 1 # maikel.punie 1 # maiL.Lists 1 # Mailservice UWV-WW Rijnmond 1 # malo 1 # Mandy van der Spoel 1 # Marc De Vreede 1 # Marcell Mars aka Nenad Romic 1 # marc Lafia 1 # Marco 1 # Marco Berlinguer 1 # marco.heijkoop 1 # Marco Ricci 1 # Marcos GarcÃÂa 1 # marc.rijnveld 1 # Marc Verstappen 1 # margaret 1 # margreetriphagen 1 # Margreet Riphagen 1 # MarianD8184A 1 # marietje.schaake 1 # marijnverbiesen 1 # Marina Galperina 1 # marissa.westerduin 1 # marius schebella 1 # marius watz 1 # mark beerens 1 # Mark Essen 1 # martijnstellinga 1 # martijn_van_der_veen 1 # martin 1 # Martin Zeilinger 1 # mart van santen 1 # marysghost 1 # Masha u 1 # Massimo Leone 1 # Massimo Menichinelli 1 # matsuko 1 # Matthew Sweet 1 # Matthew White 1 # mattkemp25 1 # maurice 1 # mauryv 1 # maxime.damecour 1 # Max Senden 1 # media 1 # meg1961 1 # Melentie Pandilovski 1 # melissaslootweg 1 # melledorange 1 # menno grootveld 1 # Menno van der Woude 1 # merijn oudenampsen 1 # mgallego 1 # micha cÃenas 1 # Michael Eisenmenger 1 # Michael Rogers 1 # Michael van Schaik 1 # micha prinsen 1 # Michelle Christensen 1 # Michiel Leenaars 1 # Mick Fuzz 1 # migosch 1 # Miguel Afonso Caetano 1 # Mikael Brockman 1 # mike 1 # Mikel Duyts 1 # Mike Macgillivray 1 # Mike Stubbs 1 # Mindaugas Gapsevicius 1 # minkeanligeon 1 # mirjamremie 1 # misha 1 # mj.konings 1 # MK Karnak 1 # ML Nettime 1 # modification 1 # moem 1 # monica bello 1 # Monica Cachafeiro 1 # Monique vd Wijdeven 1 # monxheaven 1 # morgan currie 1 # Moritz 1 # Moritz Bartl 1 # mputto 1 # mr.sauli 1 # msorice 1 # mukx 1 # M V H 1 # mvtrijffel 1 # m.zoeteman 1 # n a gosteva 1 # Nagraj Adve 1 # natabor 1 # natacha 1 # natalieb 1 # nathalie 1 # nathaniel tkacz 1 # ncrmr 1 # Neal - Office of Experiments 1 # Ned Rossiter 1 # needatisprive 1 # neil fridd 1 # netbehaviour 1 # nett >> a moderated mailing... 1 # nettime_2 . 0 1 # nettime-ann-request 1 # nettime . edu 1 # nettime_k_dick 1 # nettime l 1 # nettime-l 1 # nettime little_birdie 1 # nettime-l mailing list 1 # nettime-l-owner 1 # nettime-l-request 1 # nettime-nl-request 1 # nettime's_access_point 1 # nettime's_all_seeing_eye 1 # nettime's_anal-retentive-bo... 1 # nettime's_anonymous_login 1 # nettime's_antithesis 1 # nettime's_autodidact 1 # nettime's_automaton 1 # nettime's avid gift giver 1 # nettime's avid review reader 1 # nettime's_beachbum-beneath-... 1 # nettime's_bear 1 # nettime's_blinkenlights 1 # nettime's_b!lngu4l_zekretary 1 # nettime's blockwart 1 # nettime's_broken_record 1 # nettime's_captive_audience 1 # nettime's cash hoard 1 # nettime's_certificate_autho... 1 # nettime's_chilly_reception 1 # nettime's_cloud_service 1 # nettime's_co-coo 1 # nettime's_colostomy_bag 1 # nettime's confused printer 1 # nettime's copy editor 1 # nettime's crooked dealer 1 # nettime's_cud_chewer 1 # nettime's_cybercolonist 1 # nettime's_data_driver 1 # nettime's_deep_diver 1 # nettime's delayed presence 1 # nettime's_dependent_insecur... 1 # nettime's de-terminator 1 # nettime's_dfh 1 # nettime's digestive system 1 # nettime's_dom 1 # nettime's_drive_thru 1 # nettime's dual-use researcher 1 # nettime's_dumpster_diver 1 # nettime's_dusty_librarian 1 # nettime's dutiful chronologist 1 # nettime's_easy_listener 1 # Nettime-SEE 1 # nettime's_embedded_reporter 1 # nettime's employee of the t... 1 # nettime's_eternal_carriage_... 1 # nettime's_ex-journo 1 # nettime's explation of evil 1 # nettime's_factotum 1 # nettime's false digest 1 # nettime's_ferryman 1 # nettime's fetters 1 # nettime's_fieldworker 1 # nettime's filter algorithm 1 # nettime's_firetrap 1 # nettime's_forbidden_city 1 # nettime's_forgetful_historian 1 # nettime's_frequent_flyer 1 # nettime's friendly communit... 1 # nettime's_fruit_machine 1 # nettime's_futuro-nostalgist 1 # nettime's gagged reader 1 # nettime's_gangsta 1 # nettime's_generator 1 # nettime's_geowanker 1 # nettime's global protest 1 # nettime's gloomy prospector 1 # nettime's_gopher 1 # nettime's_gran_fury 1 # nettime's_hand-cranked_if_t... 1 # nettime's_hatchet_man 1 # nettime's_hidden_hand 1 # nettime's historian 1 # nettime's historical fader 1 # nettime's_human_face 1 # nettime's impressed reader 1 # nettime's_indentured_servant 1 # nettime's_influencing_machine 1 # nettime's_institutional_memory 1 # nettime's_karbon_klub 1 # nettime's_krusty krab 1 # nettime's_landscaper 1 # nettime's_lettrist 1 # nettime's_lifer 1 # nettime's_little_birdi 1 # nettime's_little_birdie 1 # nettime's_little_helper 1 # nettime's_logroller 1 # nettime's_loss_leader 1 # nettime's_macher 1 # nettime's mailman 1 # nettime's_maitre_d 1 # nettime's marginal protester 1 # nettime's miser 1 # nettime's mod squad 1 # nettime's monkey lawyer 1 # nettime's msg collector 1 # nettime's_observer 1 # nettime's_occupational_ther... 1 # nettime's_occupier 1 # nettime's_omphalosceptic 1 # nettime's one click activist 1 # nettime's_open_mic 1 # nettime's_optimo-pessimist 1 # nettime's_orchid_man 1 # nettime's_oversharer 1 # nettime's panic room 1 # nettime's paranoid reader 1 # nettime's_permadjunct 1 # nettime's pink hat 1 # nettime's_poster_child 1 # nettime's_pretzel_logician 1 # nettime's_primal_scenester 1 # nettime's_privileged_position 1 # nettime's_probiotic_brigade 1 # nettime's_purdue_chicken 1 # nettime's_qualitative_easing 1 # nettime's_read_write_head 1 # nettime's_revolting_peasant 1 # nettime's_rocket_scientist 1 # nettime's_roving_reader 1 # nettime's royal scribe 1 # nettime's sad reader 1 # nettime's_scapegoat 1 # nettime's_script_kiddie 1 # nettime's secret court staffer 1 # nettime's_secret_sharer 1 # nettime's_seeder 1 # nettime's_shadowy_connection 1 # nettime's_shocked_therapist 1 # nettime's silenced dissenter 1 # nettime's_special_rapporteur 1 # nettime's_speed_demon 1 # nettime's_subtractor 1 # nettime's_superman 1 # nettime's_swing_state 1 # nettime's_tearful_exit 1 # nettimes_telekommunikation_... 1 # nettime's_tensegrity_structure 1 # nettime's three is a crowd 1 # nettime's_tout 1 # nettime's_trial_balloon 1 # nettime's_troll 1 # nettime's_trololo_guy 1 # nettimes_trololo_guy 1 # nettime's_undo_undo 1 # nettime's unwaged censor 1 # nettime's vote counter 1 # nettime's_weakest_link 1 # nettime's_weekend_warrior 1 # nettime's Winston Smith 1 # nettime's_wire_service 1 # nettime's_yo_dawg 1 # nettime_utilities 1 # nettimocrat 1 # network 1 # newk 1 # newmedia 1 # New Media Brains 1 # NEW NET ART // Mailing list 1 # Nick Boganwright 1 # nickchance 1 # Nick Koning 1 # Nick Laessing 1 # Nick White 1 # nickyckpc 1 # Nicolai Peitersen 1 # nicolas 1 # nicole 1 # nijman 1 # nikidejonge 1 # Niko Princen 1 # nilo casares 1 # Nina Boas 1 # nina.scott 1 # Nina TemporÃr 1 # nirina 1 # nirinathibault 1 # Nishant Shah 1 # nmagnan 1 # nnikagrill 1 # noc 1 # none 1 # no-reply 1 # noreply 1 # Norm Friesen 1 # Nucleus 1 # Numtek 1 # Nuraini Juliastuti 1 # nvandergiesen 1 # nyettime 1 # Nynke Feenstra 1 # occupations.intersections 1 # office 1 # oktopus021268 1 # olalaParis 1 # oli4 1 # Open Forum on Participatory... 1 # openidealapp 1 # order 1 # Ãrsan 1 # ortoleva 1 # Orton AKINCI 1 # Oscar 1 # osp 1 # ozgur k . 1 # pablo 1 # pan 1 # pare 1 # Partido del Futuro 1 # Pascal Walhof 1 # Patricia de Vries 1 # patrick 1 # Patrick Anderson 1 # Patrick van der Klooster 1 # pattenden 1 # Pauline van Mourik Broekman 1 # Paul Jansen Klomp 1 # paul moir 1 # paul ternon 1 # payments-messages 1 # paypal 1 # Peggy Dobbins 1 # Peng Wai Loo 1 # pernilla.jonsson 1 # Pernille Tranberg 1 # peter 1 # Peter ciccariello 1 # Peter de Jong 1 # Peter de Vries - Silo 1 # Peter Lu 1 # Peter Marcuse 1 # Peter Taylor 1 # Peter van Rijn 1 # Petra Heck 1 # Petra LÃer 1 # Philipp Teister 1 # Philip Smith 1 # PhLo 1 # Pierre Huyghebaert 1 # Pierre Marchand 1 # piet poet 1 # piim 1 # pijkegiezen 1 # Piksel InfoBot 1 # pim 1 # pimpeterse 1 # pinkertron 1 # pirate cinema berlin 1 # pixel 1 # p.mck 1 # Poetics List (UPenn 1 # pontidou 1 # postbusatske 1 # Praveen A 1 # prem.cnt 1 # presidenza.soc 1 # press 1 # Press NAi010 1 # prixweb 1 # provisionslibrary 1 # p.taylor 1 # ptemiz 1 # p.vanhoof 1 # pxatzopoulos 1 # rabea 1 # rachel greene 1 # Radovan Misovic 1 # Raffaele Mauro 1 # Ralf De Wolf 1 # Rami Ismail 1 # Randall 1 # Rasmus Fleischer 1 # rax 1 # rd 1 # Rebeca MÃndez 1 # Rebecca Shatwell 1 # Rebecca Wilson 1 # Rebecca Zorach 1 # redactie.events 1 # reinaart vanhoe 1 # Reinder de Haan 1 # reinier.sikkens 1 # Remmert Droogleever Fortuyn 1 # Renà Bohne 1 # Rene Gabri 1 # renfah 1 # return 1 # rhindes kroeituratek 1 # Ricardo Cabello 1 # ricardo lafuente 1 # Ricardo Lafuente 1 # Ricardo Oliveira 1 # Ricardo Vega 1 # richard 1 # Richard Boeser 1 # Richard Grusin 1 # rickzero78 1 # rike 1 # Rikke Augustinus Eriksen 1 # ritslinux 1 # Rjoly 1 # rma 1 # RM.Pronk 1 # rmsastrowidjojo 1 # Robbert de Vrieze 1 # Robert Arnold 1 # robert cheatham 1 # Robert Kozinets 1 # Roberto Verzola 1 # Robert Thomas 1 # robin slakhorst 1 # Roel Roscam Abbing 1 # rogiersimons 1 # rokautz 1 # Rolf Kleef 1 # Romke Faber 1 # ronald 1 # Ronan Lane 1 # roosvdw 1 # root 1 # rop 1 # Rosa Menkman 1 # Rotterdam Internet Valley 1 # rozemarijnnieuws 1 # rrkc 1 # rupert brooks 1 # Ryan Carboni 1 # ~rybn 1 # s 1 # Sadie Menchen 1 # Sam Dwyer 1 # Sameer Padania 1 # sam hillmer 1 # Sam Nemeth 1 # Sander Trispel 1 # sandraiaraujo 1 # Sangmin Kim 1 # Sara 1 # Sarah Thompson 1 # Sara Kolster 1 # Sasha Costanza-Chock 1 # scaglioni 1 # schall 1 # scherpenisse 1 # Schokker AZ 1 # scholzt 1 # Scott Martin 1 # scott.meyer 1 # Sean Leonard 1 # sfa 1 # sgac silvia 1 # sgirbau 1 # shaded 1 # Siebe Thissen 1 # sietse 1 # signal.automatique 1 # Silvio Lorusso 1 # simon 1 # Simon Marie-Sarah 1 # sjdbakker 1 # sjk.0x0 1 # Snelting 1 # Snijlab 1 # Snijlab - Jiskar Schmitz 1 # snijlablasercutting 1 # Soenke Zehle 1 # Sofian Audry 1 # Sol Trumbo Vila 1 # Sonia Yuditskaya 1 # sonjavank 1 # Sophie Menasse 1 # sophie toupin 1 # Sophie Vijgen 1 # ""SÃren Lundgaard (soren.... 1 # spy emerson 1 # ssann_ 1 # stdin 1 # stefaniekolk 1 # Stefan Schoorl|Virtueel Pla... 1 # stefko 1 # Stef van Dongen 1 # StÃphanie Majerus / Casino... 1 # StÃphanie Vilayphiou 1 # Stephen David Beck 1 # Stephen Yan 1 # sterry59 1 # Steven Alvarado 1 # Steven Amrhein 1 # stichting nac 1 # stinie.furst 1 # stock 1 # stoopt 1 # stropom 1 # studio 1 # sumandro 1 # Sunil Abraham 1 # sunn 1 # support-en 1 # Susan Lawly 1 # Susanne Gerber 1 # suzan 1 # suzanne hansen 1 # svleyenhorst 1 # syed amins 1 # szabolcs kisspal 1 # tableton 1 # tammy mcgovern 1 # Tapas Ray 1 # tati 1 # tbm5mmf091chekh17hn0a4c8lo 1 # team 1 # teister 1 # teresa.van.twuijver 1 # The Doctor 1 # The Force Of Freedom - Inqu... 1 # the_ghost_of_nettimes_past 1 # Theo Rà 1 # therese roth 1 # The Yes Lab 1 # The Yes Men 1 # Thijs|De Unie 1 # Thomas James Lodato 1 # thomas oster 1 # Thomas Poell 1 # Thomas Raab 1 # those_who_forget_nettime_ar... 1 # Thu Tran 1 # tidepool 1 # tiestenbosch 1 # tijs 1 # Tijs Ham 1 # tim braakman 1 # Tim Braakman 1 # Tim Dittler 1 # Tim Hoogesteger|DEAF2012 1 # tini 1 # tobias 1 # Tobias Leingruber 1 # Tobi Mà 1 # tom.de.lange 1 # tom keene 1 # Tommy Surya 1 # Tom Sherman 1 # Tom van der Werf 1 # Tom Wanders 1 # Tonnie Langelaar 1 # TRAILER - Tim Braakman 1 # transcollab 1 # traum_a 1 # traveleasy.nz 1 # tristan perich 1 # tschwartz 1 # turbo_500 1 # tutupecanape 1 # twinkel 1 # txt 1 # uair01 1 # ucy 1 # Ukrainevatinvoicerequest 1 # ultimaker 1 # Ultimaker 1 # un heimlich 1 # unlike-us-owner 1 # unlike-us-request 1 # v 1 # Valentina Tanni 1 # valentineheuzinkveld 1 # vana kostayola 1 # vanveelen 1 # varvaras 1 # Veerle Devreese / Virtueel ... 1 # veg_an_dro 1 # Vera Tollmann 1 # verkoop 1 # verlag 1 # vheuzinkveld 1 # Victor Cardoso 1 # vigild 1 # vincentei 1 # vip 1 # Visa-Valtteri Pimià 1 # V M 1 # vragen 1 # vveelen 1 # wannk858 1 # wcameronjackson 1 # weareunmaking 1 # webartery 1 # webmaster 1 # wilmakun 1 # Wolfart Projectspaces 1 # Wolfgang Sà 1 # wolfie christl 1 # w van twuijver 1 # Yari Lanci 1 # yolanda 1 # yoner 1 # yongsikdelbecque 1 # you 1 # youngcurators 1 # Yu-Lan van Alphen 1 # zakiaela 1 # Zbigniew Karkowski 1 # Zelda Beauchampet 1 # znmarie 1 # zoekat 1 # zoetr 1 # zquadro 1 # zuraida 2 # 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discu... 2 # abram stern (aphid) 2 # accidental loves 2 # Adam Arvidsson 2 # adsl487504 {AT} telfort.nl 2 # aharon 2 # Aksioma 2 # Alana Lentin 2 # Alessandra Renzi 2 # Alison Hearn 2 # 'a moderated mailing list f... 2 # Andreas Maria Jacobs 2 # Andreas Treske 2 # Andres Manniste 2 # Andre Spicer 2 # Anivar Aravind 2 # Anna 2 # anna carreri 2 # annet dekker 2 # Antonella 2 # APSA-CIVED {AT} h-net.msu.edu 2 # arc.hive 2 # armin 2 # Armitage J. 2 # arnova-l 2 # Arns HMKV Inke 2 # Arthur Tolsma 2 # Ayhan Aytes 2 # Barile Nello 2 # Bas Schouten 2 # Bengt Kristensson Uggla 2 # Beunza 2 # Bodà BalÃzs 2 # Bonini Tiziano 2 # Brett Shand 2 # 'Bria 2 # Bruce Robinson 2 # carolina bandinelli 2 # Cassinger 2 # CG 2 # c.gerlitz 2 # Charles Baldwin 2 # Charlie Leadbeater 2 # Chiara Camponeschi 2 # Chris de Groot 2 # Christopher Leslie 2 # Colin Hodson 2 # contact 2 # Cova bernard 2 # cris cheek 2 # CRITICAL-MANAGEMENT 2 # czegledy 2 # DaniÃl de Zeeuw 2 # Dante-Gabryell Monson 2 # DeeDee Halleck 2 # Discussion list about the WSF 2 # dmitry vilensky 2 # Drew Hemment 2 # Dr. Peter Troxler 2 # DrY Internacional 2 # dvyng 2 # Elisabeth Nesheim 2 # Elisa Giomi 2 # elise t 2 # e.parsons 2 # Federico Bonelli 2 # felix 2 # flick harrison 2 # fluxlist 2 # Franco Mattes 2 # Frank Rieger 2 # fuller 2 # Gary Hall 2 # gidget 2 # Gita Hashemi 2 # Goggin 2 # Graham St John 2 # Griffis 2 # hello 2 # holly 2 # IDC List 2 # Ignacio Nieto 2 # in 2 # Inke Arns 2 # InterOccupy Info 2 # Itziar Castello 2 # Jaap Vermaas 2 # Jake Harries 2 # Jakob Jakobsen 2 # J Armitage 2 # Javier Arbona 2 # Jeebesh 2 # Jeremie Zimmermann 2 # Jeremy Beaudry 2 # jerome 2 # Jim 2 # JNM 2 # Joe Karaganis 2 # Joe Raimondo 2 # John Stillframe 2 # Jon Ippolito 2 # Jordan Crandall 2 # Josephine Berry 2 # keith 2 # Kellie McElhaney 2 # Kevin Hamilton 2 # Kim Asendorf 2 # Kruno Jost 2 # Kunal Gupta 2 # lorenzo tripodi 2 # Luke Smith 2 # manu ciuffoli 2 # mara karagianni 2 # Marazzi Christian 2 # Marc Stumpel 2 # marieke verbiesen 2 # Mark Simpkins 2 # Martyna Starosta 2 # mary de martin 2 # Mathilde muPe 2 # Matteo Pasquinelli 2 # maxigas 2 # Mayo Fuster Morell 2 # Michael H. Goldhaber 2 # Michael Zeltner 2 # microsound announce 2 # miltosmanetas 2 # molly Hankwitz 2 # nello.barile 2 # nettime announce 2 # nettime {AT} kein.org 2 # nettime-l {AT} kein.org> 2 # Nettimepost 2 # nettime's_avid_reader 2 # nettime's_castaway 2 # nettime's_chronicler 2 # nettime's_court_reporter 2 # nettime's_enigma 2 # nettime's_entropist 2 # nettime's_fly_on_the_wall 2 # nettime's_indigestive_system 2 # nettime's_mod_squad 2 # nettime's_openspammer 2 # nettime's_risk_manager 2 # nettime's smart reader 2 # nettime's spam kritik 2 # nettime's_streamlinegram 2 # nettime submissions 2 # nettime's_zentral_kommittee 2 # nettime's zuchtmeister 2 # nic 2 # nomadmail 2 # Norbert Bollow 2 # Onno Frederiks 2 # ÃzgÃr K. 2 # paolo - IOCOSE 2 # Paolo Ruffino 2 # Patrick McCurdy 2 # Pavlos Hatzopoulos 2 # Phoebe Moore 2 # pierluigi 2 # Pierre guillet de Monthoux 2 # Piksel Infobot 2 # Pim Dumans 2 # Prashant Paikray 2 # r1ftrouter 2 # Rachel O' Dwyer 2 # redactie 2 # richard joly 2 #  Robbins 2 # robert adrian 2 # Roelof Roscam Abbing 2 # Roope Mokka 2 # Rory Solomon 2 # Sacha van Geffen 2 # Saul Albert 2 # Sean Cubitt 2 # Sebastian Olma 2 # service 2 # Sivasubramanian M 2 # Speakeasy 2 # Station Rose 2 # Stephen Kovats 2 # support 2 # Suzanne Treister 2 # Suzon Fuks 2 # tamas 2 # targetautonopop 2 # temp 2 # tijmen 2 # Tilman BaumgÃrtel 2 # Timothy Druckrey 2 # Tim Schwartz 2 # Tom Keene 2 # unlike-us 2 # Veronika Leiner 2 # Vicente Matallana 2 # Walter Langelaar 2 # walter palmetshofer 2 # WE LOVE GREEN 2 # Will Jackson 2 # zB 3 # aha 3 # Air-L {AT} listserv.aoir.org 3 # Alexander Karschnia 3 # allaninfo 3 # Andrew Ross 3 # appam-l 3 # apsa_itp 3 # Bassam el Baroni 3 # bhcontinentaldrift 3 # BishopZ 3 # Cecile Landman 3 # Center for the Study of the... 3 # Chad Scoville 3 # ciresearchers {AT} vancouvercomm... 3 # colin hodson 3 # Cornelia Sollfrank 3 # Dave Hollis 3 # David Garica 3 # Desiree Miloshevic 3 # d . garcia 3 # Dmitry Vilensky 3 # Eduardo 3 # Edward Shanken 3 # el 3 # elisabeth 3 # Eric Beck 3 # Eric Miller 3 # geert lovink 3 # Goran Maric 3 # harwood 3 # James Wallbank 3 # jaroslaw lipszyc 3 # J.A. Terranson 3 # John Haltiwanger 3 # John Jordan 3 # Joseph Rabie 3 # JRabie 3 # Juergen Fenn 3 # Julia Rà 3 # Karen O'Rourke 3 # Kevin Flanagan 3 # Koen Martens 3 # kontakt |Âflorian kuhlmann 3 # . left | coast | lurker . 3 # linus lancaster 3 # Magnus Boman 3 # marc 3 # Mark Andrejevic 3 # Marko Peljhan 3 # martha rosler 3 # Michael Dieter 3 # Michael Weisman 3 # Moritz Geremus 3 # Nancy Mauro-Flude 3 # Nettime List 3 # nettime-nl 3 # nettime's_bean_counter 3 # nettime's_dusty_archivist 3 # nettime's_institutional_rev... 3 # nettime's_lifelong_learner 3 # nettime's_man_in_the_middle 3 # Novica Nakov 3 # paolo do 3 # paralevel 3 # Pranesh Prakash 3 # Renee Turner 3 # Robert W. Gehl 3 # sachiko hayashi 3 # S. Kritikos 3 # StÃphane Mourey 3 # Thomas Gramstad 3 # Timo Klok 3 # unsubscribe 3 # Vasilis Kostakis 3 # Wolfie Christl 3 # WSF L&G 3 # Yosem Companys 3 # Yves Bernard 4 # almost 4 # Art McGee 4 # august 4 # brandon jourdan 4 # Clemens Apprich 4 # dan mcquillan 4 # dan s wang 4 # Douglas La Rocca 4 # franco berardi 4 # fran ilich 4 # gab fest 4 # Garrett Lynch 4 # hellekin 4 # Ian Milliss 4 # IR3ABF 4 # James Barrett 4 # Jernej Prodnik 4 # Jon Lebkowsky 4 # Josephine Berry Slater 4 # Jo van der Spek M2M 4 # KMV 4 # Konrad Becker 4 # LORENZO TAIUTI 4 # Lucas Evers 4 # maria ptqk 4 # McLaughlin 4 # !Mediengruppe Bitnik 4 # nettime-l {AT} mail.kein.org> 4 # nettime-l {AT} mx.kein.org 4 # nettime's_groving_greporter 4 # nettime's_mod_squad squad 4 # Nicolas Bourbaki 4 # oli 4 # Owen Mundy 4 # ÃzgÃr k. 4 # Rob Dyke 4 # Ryan Griffis 4 # Shawn K. Quinn 4 # Simona Lodi 4 # Steven Clift 4 # Tapas Ray [Gmail] 4 # Tilman BaumgÃel 4 # =?UTF-8?B?IEZyZWRlcmljayBGT... 4 # Vuk ÄosiÄ 5 # Alessandro Delfanti 5 # Alexandre Carvalho 5 # Aliette GC 5 # brian.holmes {AT} aliceadsl.fr 5 # Bruce Sterling 5 # Calin Dan 5 # Carsten Agger 5 # Chapullers OrsanS 5 # Doug Henwood 5 # Erich M. 5 # | f | | | 3 5 # Frederic Janssens 5 # frederic neyrat 5 # jaromil 5 # Johan SÃberg 5 # mazzetta 5 # Miriam Rasch 5 # Murray Simpson 5 # nativebuddha 5 # nettime-ann 5 # P2P Foundation mailing list 5 # pavlos hatzopoulos 5 # Prem Chandavarkar 5 # Rama Hoetzlein 5 # roberta buiani 5 # Sophie Le-Phat Ho 5 # Spectre 5 # squares 6 # agent humble 6 # Ana Valdà 6 # ari 6 # Ed Phillips 6 # nettime's_digestive_system 6 # Rob van Kranenburg 6 # Sandra Braman 6 # Tatiana Bazzichelli 7 # chris mann 7 # Corina L. Apostol 7 # David Golumbia 7 # Eduardo Valle 7 # Fuster 7 # Harsh Kapoor 7 # Jean-NoÃMontagnà 7 # Joss Winn 7 # Karin Spaink 7 # Kristoffer Gansing 7 # Louise Desrenards 7 # mail 7 # Michael Reinsborough 7 # navva 8 # Angela Mitropoulos 8 # Brett Scott 8 # carl guderian 8 # Dean 8 # Lorenzo Tripodi 8 # Michel Bauwens 8 # networkedlabour {AT} lists.contr... 8 # sebastian 8 # seb olma 8 # Vesna Manojlovic 9 # Aymeric Mansoux 9 # lista net time 9 # Nicholas Knouf 9 # Sascha D. Freudenheim 9 # Snafu 9 # spectre 10 # Alexander Bard 10 # David Garcia 10 # Eugen Leitl 10 # Krystian Woznicki 10 # marc garrett 10 # mez breeze 10 # Michael H Goldhaber 10 # NetBehaviour for networked ... 10 # Patrick Lichty 10 # William Waites 11 # commoning 11 # patrice 11 # Richard Barbrook 12 # claudia bernardi 12 # Dan S. Wang 12 # martin hardie 12 # Simona Levi 13 # Frederick FN Noronha àÃ.. 13 # Joly MacFie 13 # Matze Schmidt 13 # nettime mod squad 13 # Stevphen Shukaitis 14 # { brad brace } 14 # Margaret Morse 14 # Matthew Fuller 14 # Paolo Cirio 15 # Eugenio Tisselli 15 # olia lialina 15 # olivier auber 15 # Thomas Dreher 16 # Jonathan Marshall 17 # Christian Fuchs 17 # Michael Gurstein 17 # nettime's_spam_kr!k!t 17 # xDxD.vs.xDxD 19 # brian carroll 19 # David Mandl 21 # Orsan 22 # d.garcia 22 # Molly Hankwitz 24 ## Eric Kluitenberg 25 ## Alex Foti 26 ## Andreas Broeckmann 26 ## Armin Medosch 26 ## dan 26 ## list nettime 26 ## Orsan Senalp 27 ## Nick 30 ## a moderated mailing list fo... 32 ## Nettime-l 32 ## nettime-l {AT} mail.kein.org 34 ## info 34 ## nettime's_roving_reporter 35 ## Keith Sanborn 35 ## Ãrsan Åenalp 36 ## Alan Sondheim 37 ## mp 38 ## t byfield 39 ## Flick Harrison 40 ## Heiko Recktenwald 42 ## Morlock Elloi 43 ## morlockelloi 45 ## Keith Hart 47 ## allan siegel 47 ## Rob Myers 50 ### Janos Sugar 52 ### Nettime-L 56 ### John Young 57 ### michael gurstein 65 ### Florian Cramer 66 ### Dmytri Kleiner 72 #### Tjebbe van Tijen 74 #### Felix Stalder 88 #### nettime's avid reader 98 ##### John Hopkins 103 ##### nettime-l {AT} kein.org 105 ##### Newmedia 108 ##### Jaromil 122 ###### Geert Lovink 128 ###### Brian Holmes 266 ############ Patrice Riemens 3194 ###################################################################################################################################### nettime-l 3874 ################################################################################################################################################################### nettime 3958 ####################################################################################################################################################################### Nettime the last three lines are an ode to chmod ciao -- Denis Roio aka Jaromil http://Dyne.org think &do tank CTO and co-founder free/open source developer åå 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10 13.7 Re: <nettime> choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim Newmedia nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:15:49 -0500 Dear Nettimers: "McLuhanite technological determinism" . . . !! As maybe the only person from the Wall Street "wing" of the technology industry (with at least one confirmed *weird* "assignment" from the CIA) to ever participate in nettime -- starting with that late-night phone-call from Diana asking me to "keynote" MetaForum III (in Oct 1996), guessing that I was the "anti-Barlow" -- I resemble that remark. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1265585,00.asp Perhaps some of my friends on the list would be interested to hear that I've started a strategic research Center, partnering with a retired Naval intelligence officer and many others, to consider how *digital* technology changes civilizations -- starting with China (which I first visited shortly after going to Budapest). _www.digitallife.center_ (http://www.digitallife.center/) Thanks for *all* of your help along the way, I really couldn't have done it without you . . . <g> Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights 14.0 <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. nettime mod squad nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:38:46 -0100 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) 14.1 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. frank tigrero nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:08:36 -0400 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. 14.2 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Sascha D. Freudenheim nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:18:23 -0400 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 14.3 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. John Young nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:56:46 -0400 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. 14.4 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Tomasz Rola nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 7 Jun 2019 21:07:21 +0200 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_rola@bigfoot.com ** 14.5 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Sascha D. Freudenheim nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:49:37 -0400 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 14.6 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. John Preston nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 07 Jun 2019 21:34:04 +0100 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 14.7 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Udruga UKE nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 8 Jun 2019 14:56:02 +0200 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 14.8 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. John Preston nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:56 +0100 Just forwarding this up. From: Karim Brohi <karim@trauma.org> Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST To: John Preston <wcerfgba@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 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 14.9 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. John Preston nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 08 Jun 2019 07:45:08 -0700 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 14.10 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Renée Lynn Reizman nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:15:59 -0700 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!Renéehttp://www.reneereizman.com 14.11 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Tom Keene nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:18:51 +0100 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... 14.12 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Sean Cubitt nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:21:58 +0000 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 14.13 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. voyd nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 09 Jun 2019 12:47:10 -0400 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. 14.14 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Jordan Crandall nettime-l@kein.org Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:15:41 -0700 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 14.15 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. carlo von lynX nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:11:47 +0200 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. 14.16 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Molly Hankwitz nettime-l@kein.org Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:23:18 -0700 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 <lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org> 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. 14.17 Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. André Rebentisch nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 30 Jun 2019 16:23:20 +0200 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 14.18 <nettime> Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Molly Hankwitz nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:40:34 -0700 Forwarded on behalf of Nina---------- Forwarded message ---------From: "Nina Temporär" <nina-temp@gmx.de>Date: Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:59 AMSubject: Aw: Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.To: Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>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" <lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org> An: nettime-l@kein.org Betreff: Re: <nettime> 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. 14.19 Re: <nettime> Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. John Preston nettime-l@kein.org Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:54:11 -0700 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]: <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. 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 15.0 Re: <nettime> introducing {AT} nettime_bo nettime mod squad nettime-l@kein.org Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:31:18 +0100 On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:31:34AM -0800, morlockelloi {AT} yahoo.com wrote: > Would it be possible, for those who don't want their names ending on > TWTR disks, to have a Subject: tag that bypasses the bot - for example > "MO:" (mail only), like in: Done -- and thank you for this excellent suggestion. >From now on, if you include #ANON in the subject line of a message, the {AT} nettime_bot twitter bot will omit the sender's name. The link will still point to the same old nettime archive, so it's trivially easy to find out who sent a message -- just one click. Starting with this message, the footer at the bottom of every nettime-l message will include an additional line to explain this: Other suggestions, about the twitter bot or anything else, are welcome. Cheers, the mod squad (Felix, Ted, Doma) 16.0 <nettime> Down with moderation nettime's mod squad nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:03 +0200 This is a good time to say that nettime hasn't been moderated for the last several weeks -- since July 4th, to be exact. We didn't announce the change because it didn't seem necessary. Inward-looking meta-debates about moderation on nettime have always been at least partly boring, and they were sometimes destructive -- so why invite another one? Why not let them fade away with moderation? Whatever you think about nettime now, it seems safe to say that the list would have ceased to exist long ago if it hadn't been moderated. But over time, as the list has become sleepier, the benefits of moderation have become fewer. And, as Keith's message shows, moderation has downsides -- for example, uncertainty about whether some messages have gotten lost in the shuffle. Over the last years, moderation -- to a large extent -- consisted of menial tasks such as rejecting oneliners and ask people who submitted bare URLs to write a brief intro and post the entire content into the mail, since the nettime archive is, actually, an archive. So, we ask you do keep this in mind -- along with all the rest -- when posting to nettime. Also, for all the people who care about nettime, think about inviting new people to post their own interesting material. So, for now at least, any message from a subscriber should immediately appear on the list. Non-scubscribers' messages are held for manual approval. If anyone seems to be abusing the list, we'll flag their address so their messages need to be manually approved. the mod squad, Felix, Ted, and Doma 16.1 <nettime> Up with moderation Brian Holmes nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:04:57 -0500 And up with moderation. 17.0 <nettime> nettime past and future tbyfield nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 06 Sep 2019 17:00:07 +0200 (I just dug this up -- maybe of interest.) - - - - - - - - - - - - 8< SNIP! 8< - A- - - - - - - - - - - To: nettime-l@kein.org Subject: <nettime> digestion digest From: nettime mod squad <nettime@kein.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 06:27:37 +0100 As nettime comes up on its twentieth birthday, we've started looking back at what happened. What follows is a nearly complete list of more than 700 different identities we've given to nettime's digest function over the last 16+ years. Cheers, the mod squad (Ted and Felix) nettime's.sorry nettime's(.bash)_history nettime's_ _ nettime's_ _ again nettime's_ roving_reporter nettime's___ nettime's____________ nettime's_________________ nettime's__grand_inquisitor nettime's_--------_detector nettime's_...wait...oh my god! it's alive! nettime's_'r'_critic nettime's_(anti)?thetical_synthesizer nettime's_(g)?lo(b|c)al_pundit nettime's_|<0u||+3r-.* nettime's_1337ologist nettime's_31337_h!5+0r!4|| nettime's_911_compiler nettime's academy nettime's accelerated cycles nettime's accountants nettime's_active_digestresse nettime's_adding_machine nettime's_akademik_zensor nettime's_alarmist nettime's alias nettime's_american_friend nettime's_anal_editor nettime's_anal-retentive-book-editor/librarian nettime's_AND_gate nettime's_annaliste nettime's_annotation_line nettime's announcer nettime's_anonymizer nettime's_anonymizing_service nettime's anonymous coward nettime's_anonymous_login nettime's_anti_war_dig nettime's_antithesis nettime's_api nettime's_appraisal_committee nettime's_arbiter_of_taste nettime's archivist nettime's_armchair_historian nettime's_ascii_infidel nettime's_asciimilator nettime's_assimilationist_system nettime's_attivatore nettime's_autoimmune_system nettime's_automaton nettime's avid crossposter nettime's avid gift giver nettime's avid law reader nettime's avid reader nettime's avid review reader nettime's_avid_reader nettime's_b00xw0rm nettime's_B1FF!!! nettime's_babelfish nettime's bable fish nettime's_balancing_act nettime's_barcode_reader nettime's_barker nettime's_barking_dialogist nettime's_bartleby nettime's_basic_visual_script nettime's_bean_counter nettime's_beancounter nettime's_bear nettime's bifurcated tuber nettime's_big_thumb nettime's_bird_watchers nettime's blockwart nettime's_bloggee nettime's_BMOC nettime's_body_politic nettime's_border_reporter nettime's_bored_summer_intern nettime's broken pumps nettime's_broken_record nettime's_bullshit_detector nettime's_burning_man nettime's_busy_reader nettime's_butcher nettime's_butlins nettime's_c-spammer nettime's_cache nettime's_caching_proxy nettime's cage aux trolls nettime's calculating machine nettime's_captive_audience nettime's_car_warrespondent nettime's caring parent nettime's cartoonist nettime's cash hoard nettime's_cashier nettime's_center nettime's_centrist_urge nettime's_cgi_joe nettime's_charterhouse nettime's_chatterbox nettime's_cheeseburger_to_go! nettime's_chronicler nettime's_chronological_digesta nettime's_circle_jerk nettime's_clerk nettime's closed nettime's_closet_case nettime's coin box nettime's_collection_service nettime's collective nettime's collective theorists nettime's_collective_brain nettime's_colostomy_bag nettime's compiler nettime's_compiler nettime's_compression_algorithm nettime's compulsive gamer nettime's_conditional_dig nettime's confused ontologist nettime's_conscientious_digestor nettime's_convergence_center nettime's copy editor nettime's_counter_counter_counter_something nettime's_counterimagineer nettime's_counterspam_kr!k!t nettime's_CPA nettime's crew of janitors nettime's critic of the critic nettime's crooked dealer nettime's_crusher nettime's_crystal_ball nettime's cuban middle nettime's_cud_chewer nettime's cultural nettime's curator nettime's_d-di-di-digestive_s-s-system nettime's_d-spammer nettime's_dataminer nettime's de-terminator nettime's_deadman_switch nettime's deaf reader nettime's_debabelizer nettime's_decider nettime's decoder nettime's_deep_sea_diver nettime's_deficit_disorder nettime's_deja-vu nettime's_delayed_response nettime's_delete_key nettime's_delp_hesk nettime's_demultitudinizer nettime's_depth_charge nettime's_designative_dig nettime's_dfh nettime's dialetical materialist nettime's_diet nettime's digest nettime's_digest nettime's_digest_ready_to_read nettime's digesta nettime's digester nettime's_digestion nettime's digestive system nettime's_digestive_system nettime's_digestive_system_politic nettime's_digestive_tract nettime's_digestor_of_forwarded_crises nettime's_digger nettime's director nettime's_discursive_constipation nettime's_discursive_digestive_system nettime's_disgestive_system nettime's dishonest nettime's disinfecta nettime's_disintermediation_system nettime's_dogcatcher nettime's_dom nettime's_dot_dot_dot nettime's_dot_matrix nettime's_doubleplusuncountercountercounterreformer nettime's dr doom nettime's_drive_thru nettime's_driving_force nettime's_dumpster_diver nettime's_dumptruck nettime's_dusty_archivist nettime's_dusty_cryptographer nettime's_easy_listener nettime's echo nettime's_eco_chamber nettime's_educrat nettime's_election_monitor nettime's_election_observer nettime's_elevator nettime's_elf nettime's_embedded_controller nettime's_emotional_antenna nettime's_empiricist nettime's employee of the the year nettime's_encoder_ring nettime's_enforcer nettime's_enigma nettime's_entropist nettime's_epicyclical nettime's_equalizer nettime's_eternal_carriage_return nettime's_eternal_return nettime's_ethereal_list-0//N3R!!! nettime's_evil_antimatter_twin nettime's_excursion_trip nettime's_exorcist nettime's explation of evil nettime's_extortionst nettime's_f4sc!zt_z3nz0r!!! nettime's_factotum nettime's fake shop nettime's false digest nettime's farm hand nettime's_fasc!st_zenzor nettime's_fellow_traveler nettime's_fency_activists nettime's_ferryman nettime's fetters nettime's_fickle_customer nettime's filosofer nettime's filter nettime's_fingerpuppet nettime's_firetrap nettime's_flame_warrior nettime's_flamethrower nettime's_flametrader nettime's_flashometer_I nettime's_flashometer_II nettime's_flashometer_III nettime's_flashometer_IV nettime's_fly_on_the_wall nettime's_flying_birthday_committee nettime's_focus_group nettime's_FOIA_filer nettime's_fold nettime's font checker nettime's_forbidden_city nettime's foreign nettime's_foreign_correspondent nettime's_foreign_exchange nettime's_forgetful_historian nettime's_fork_lift nettime's_fork()_lift nettime's_forking_tendencies nettime's_fortean nettime's_forth_reichian nettime's_free_gateway nettime's_frenemy nettime's frequent flyer nettime's friendly community nettime's_fruit_machine nettime's_fun_raiser nettime's funeral nettime's_furrin_exchange nettime's_gal_friday nettime's_gang nettime's_gardener nettime's_gasoholic nettime's_gatekeeper nettime's_geheimnissicherheitsdienst nettime's_generator nettime's_geodesic_structure nettime's_geowanker nettime's_ghost_of_net.art.past nettime's_gilded_cage nettime's_global nettime's_globetrotter nettime's gnu nettime's_gnu nettime's_gopher nettime's_gran_fury nettime's_groupuscule nettime's_grunt nettime's_guy_in_the_white_coat nettime's_H0AX0R nettime's_hackumentarist nettime's hand compiler nettime's handy nettime's_hawk(er) nettime's help desk nettime's_helpdesk nettime's helpers nettime's_hidden_hand nettime's_high-level_scriptor nettime's historian nettime's historical fader nettime's_historical_conciousness nettime's honest thief nettime's_hoover nettime's_human_face nettime's_hungry_ego nettime's_hyperpower nettime's hypocrite nettime's_idle_worshiper nettime's_immod nettime's inauthentic digest nettime's_incorporator nettime's_incredible_shrinking_man nettime's_indeterminate_temporary_layover nettime's_indexical_utterance nettime's_indigestive_system nettime's infatigable cartoonists nettime's_infernal_machinist nettime's_influencing_machine nettime's inner workings revealed nettime's_inquiring_minds nettime's_inside_trader nettime's_inspector nettime's_institutional_critic nettime's_institutional_memory nettime's_institutional_review_board nettime's_integrator nettime's_interactive_indeigestion nettime's internet didgest nettime's internet digest nettime's_intruder_alert nettime's_isla_bonita nettime's italian digest nettime's_janitor nettime's janitors nettime's_janitors nettime's jukebox nettime's juvenile digesta nettime's_kelly_girl nettime's_keyboard_potato nettime's knitting factory nettime's_knuckle_rapa nettime's_kompressor nettime's_kontent_kreator nettime's_kranky_kong nettime's_krusty krab nettime's_lamarckian nettime's_lazy_bastard nettime's_left_coaster nettime's_legal_dictionary nettime's_legal_workshop nettime's_letter_editor nettime's_lettrist nettime's_licensee nettime's_lifelong_learner nettime's literary nettime's_little_birdie nettime's_little_helper nettime's_lonely_crowd nettime's_loss_leader nettime's lottery nettime's lunar digest nettime's_m9nd_kontainer nettime's mad digestion nettime's_mail_h4x0r!!! nettime's mailman nettime's_MailRank[tm] nettime's_maitre_d nettime's_malcontent nettime's_man_behind_the_curtain nettime's_man_in_caracas nettime's_mandibular_function nettime's manifesto control nettime's_mann_ohne_eigenschaften nettime's manual nettime's marginal protester nettime's_market_analyst nettime's_mathemagical_thematist nettime's mechanical nettime's media nettime's media art nettime's_media_asset nettime's_media_consultant nettime's_media_magnate nettime's_meme_chose nettime's_mercurial_editor nettime's message screener nettime's message splicer nettime's_message_recoverer nettime's_messenger nettime's meta nettime's_metaphorical_archaeologist nettime's_methodological_referee nettime's middle nettime's mini-digestion nettime's miscellany nettime's miser nettime's_mixmaster nettime's_mod_squad nettime's_moderators nettime's_monkey_in_the_middle nettime's_moot_court nettime's_movement_of_movements nettime's_mr._mole nettime's_mullahs nettime's muscle critics nettime's_mytho-robo-poesis nettime's_nanny nettime's_nano_pico_femto_atto_zepto_yocto nettime's_national_conscience nettime's_natura_naturans nettime's_nettimers nettime's_new_man nettime's_new_yawker nettime's_new_yorker nettime's_newsprint_recycler nettime's_newsreader nettime's_no-mission_digger nettime's noise nettime's noise filter nettime's not so bitter digester nettime's_notebook nettime's_nutty_professor nettime's_observer nettime's_occupational_therapist nettime's_occupier nettime's_od_2 nettime's_offsite_archivist nettime's_oil_futurist nettime's_old_economy nettime's_old_world nettime's_ombudsman nettime's on/off connector nettime's one nettime's one line collector nettime's ontological apparatus nettime's_open_EAR nettime's_openspammer nettime's_opinion_contraption nettime's_opinion_digga nettime's_opportunity_adviser nettime's_optimo-pessimist nettime's_oracle nettime's_orchid_man nettime's_organic_alien nettime's_organization_man nettime's overload nettime's_overload_manager nettime's_oversharer nettime's_overworked_cleanup_crew nettime's_pac-man nettime's packet packer nettime's_paper_pusher nettime's_paperboy nettime's_para_normalist nettime's_parallel_processor nettime's paranoid reader nettime's parasites nettime's_parliament nettime's party goer nettime's_password_protection nettime's_paymaster nettime's_peanut_gallerist nettime's_pen_pal nettime's_permadjunct nettime's pilot light nettime's ping pong nettime's_pinhole nettime's_pizza_delivery nettime's plumber nettime's poet nettime's_point_n_clicktivist nettime's_policy_wonk nettime's_possessive nettime's_post_traumatic_manageress nettime's post-collective nettime's post-election analyst nettime's_postal_inspektor nettime's_poster_child nettime's_pretzel_historian nettime's_primal_scenester nettime's_prior_artist nettime's_prior_artists nettime's_privatization_authority nettime's_probiotic_brigade nettime's_psychocartographer nettime's_psychoceramicist nettime's publisher nettime's_qualitative_easing nettime's_qualquant nettime's_quasilegal nettime's_raised_hackles nettime's_random_telegram nettime's re tracer nettime's_Re_Re_Re nettime's_read_write_head nettime's reading list? nettime's_realtime_compression_lib nettime's_recapitator nettime's_recombinant nettime's_recomposer nettime's_recount nettime's_reductionist nettime's refugee digestive nettime's refugee in Australia nettime's_regional_reporter nettime's_regulator nettime's_rejection_letter nettime's relocator nettime's_reluctant_CNN_simulator nettime's remixer nettime's_remote_control nettime's_rescue_squad nettime's_research_assistant nettime's_resource_allocator nettime's_restaurant_reviewer nettime's_retabulator nettime's_retort nettime's_retrospective_system nettime's reversal nettime's_review_process nettime's rights manager nettime's riot observer nettime's_roboconnoisseur nettime's_robots.txt nettime's_rocket_scientist nettime's_role_player nettime's_rotating_moderators nettime's_roundup nettime's_rovering_reporter nettime's roving correspondent nettime's roving reporter nettime's_roving_correspondent nettime's_roving_journalist nettime's_roving_primatologist nettime's_roving_raver nettime's_roving_reader nettime's_roving_reporter nettime's_roving_reporter" nettime's_roving_reporters nettime's_roving_rerereporter nettime's_roving_subscriber nettime's rovink reporter nettime's_rovink_reporter nettime's royal scribe nettime's_rubbish_brigade nettime's_ruling_robert nettime's_ruminant nettime's_ruminator nettime's_rumor_monger nettime's_rumormonger nettime's_running_man nettime's_s'emitten nettime's sad reader nettime's_sad_forwarder nettime's salon economist nettime's_sameness_engine nettime's_satire_dig nettime's_saturday_morning_cartoon nettime's_sausage_machine nettime's_script_kiddie nettime's_secret_santa nettime's_seeder nettime's_sekrit_dekoding_ring nettime's_self-cleaning oven nettime's_self-digestive_system nettime's semantic descrambler nettime's_senior_bastard nettime's_sensible_sorta nettime's_sensor nettime's_septuabotanist nettime's_server_in_return nettime's service industry nettime's_shadowy_connection nettime's shop nettime's_short_fuse nettime's_shrugging_atlas nettime's_signalisa nettime's signalist nettime's_sistema_indigestivo nettime's_six_steps_back nettime's_skeptical_inquirer nettime's_slouch nettime's_slovene_detranslator nettime's_slovene_philosopher nettime's smart reader nettime's_smoke_signal nettime's social being nettime's_social_alchemist nettime's_solar_anus nettime's_solvent nettime's spam kr!t!k nettime's spam kritik nettime's spam reader nettime's_spam_archivist nettime's_spam_connoisseur nettime's_spam_filter nettime's_spam_inspector nettime's_spam_kr!k!t nettime's_spam_kritik nettime's_spamkrikit nettime's_spamkritik nettime's_spamkurator nettime's_speculator nettime's_speed_demon nettime's spell nettime's_spokesmodel nettime's_spreada nettime's_spring_cleaner nettime's_stable_boy nettime's_star_chamber nettime's_storm_system nettime's_streamlinegram nettime's_street_historian nettime's_strongman nettime's_subject_line_kritik nettime's_subtractor nettime's_sudden_turn nettime's_suggestion_boxer nettime's_sunny_countenance nettime's_superliminalist nettime's_support_group nettime's_support_line nettime's_supportive_frontliners nettime's_sustainable_ethic nettime's suv driver nettime's_sweatshop nettime's sweaty nettime's_swing_state nettime's swiss arbiter nettime's_syllabary nettime's_symbolic_formalist nettime's_symboliste nettime's_symptomatic_corresponda nettime's_symptomatic_distincta nettime's_syncretic_materialist nettime's_synthesist nettime's_synthetic_system nettime's_t[ext]j_spooky nettime's_tcp_rapper nettime's_tensegrity_structure nettime's terrorism think tank nettime's_teta_bester nettime's_theoretical_potato nettime's_thermodynamic_principle nettime's_thinktank nettime's_third_thumb nettime's three is a crowd nettime's_three_tumbs nettime's_throughput nettime's_ticker nettime's_ticket_collector nettime's_ticket_source nettime's_time-to-live nettime's_timekeeper nettime's_tin_cup nettime's tired nettime's_tireless_reporter nettime's_toolbox_repairshop nettime's_topiary.artist nettime's_tough_digesta nettime's_tout nettime's_toy_canon nettime's_toy_system nettime's_transmittress nettime's travel agency nettime's_trigestive_system nettime's_troll nettime's_trololo_guy nettime's troublemaker nettime's true believer nettime's_truth-breaking_news-evaluator nettime's_tuesday_welder nettime's_turnabout nettime's_two_steps_forward nettime's typographers nettime's_u1tra_B1FF nettime's ueber vectoralist nettime's uebertranzi nettime's umpire nettime's_un-american_committee nettime's_uncola nettime's_uncola_drinker nettime's_undertaker nettime's unpaid curatorial staff nettime's_unpaid_curator nettime's_untouchable nettime's unwaged censor nettime's upset stomac nettime's_ur-member nettime's_uuencoder nettime's_vapor_trail nettime's very avid reader nettime's_village_gossip nettime's_village_green_society nettime's virtual coin box nettime's_virtual_infectress nettime's_walrus_and_carpenter nettime's_war_weary nettime's_waterloo_monger nettime's_weakest_link nettime's_whatever nettime's white collar nettime's_wiczfinder_general_plus nettime's_wilderness_of_mirrors nettime's Winston Smith nettime's_wire_service nettime's_wireless_transceiver nettime's_woomera_link nettime's word police nettime's_word-processor nettime's_words_fail_me nettime's_world_system nettime's wrappa nettime's_WTO_reporter nettime's_xor nettime's year end charity nettime's_yes_women(?!)_spam_kr!k!t(?!) nettime's_yo_dawg nettime's_zentral_kommittee nettime's_zombie_process nettime's_ztandup_komedian - - - - - - - - - - - - 8< SNIP! 8< - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.1 Re: <nettime> nettime past and future Alan Sondheim nettime-l@kein.org Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:19:04 -0400 (EDT) of extreme interest, re the nudge-horizon of compression/containment 18.0 <nettime> Nettime-bold is dead the nettime mod squad nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Wed, 28 May 2003 19:17:40 +0200 Dear Nettimers, We are closing nettime-bold. Some weeks ago, we stopped archiving it because the archives kept breaking.[1] Now, because the cost of running the list is high in terms of load on the nettime.org server and the benefits are low in terms of creative or 'open' uses of nettime-bold, we are closing the list for good. As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. First, there was very little interest in it. At its best, nettime-bold had about 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5% the subscribers nettime-l had. Originally, when the decision to launch nettime-bold was made (Feb. 2000) we intended as a way to make the moderation process more transparent. Since there was some discontent with the moderation, we thought that alternative moderations might spring up, using the same base feed as nettime-l. It didn't happen. Second, and more importantly, it seems like it's impossible to run a completely open channel, even if you don't care about the quality of the content. The Internet, as an evironment, has become so 'hostile' that 'undifferentiated' openness is not a practical option anymore. This happens both internally, in the sense of people who know the list abusing it deliberately (to make an artistic or political point), as well as externally, where the list becomes just one in a million anonymous addresses, available for $19.99 to any spammer. This is not surprising. Flame wars, list flooding and spam are we well-known problems. But it raises the question how to maintain openness in an environment you cannot assume even the most basic assumptions to be shared. This is not to say that it's impossible to keep a communication channel open (slashdot, wikipedia and, we guess, nettime-l are working examples) but it means that there is a needs to upgrade both the technical platforms and thinking about what 'openness' means. One thing this no longer means is an unmoderated nettime channel. RIP, nettime-bold. [the nettime mods] [1] http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0303/msg00049.html 19.0 <nettime> Nettime is dead anna balint nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 30 May 2003 16:27:12 +0200 Dear mod squad, i thought the contrary, that nettime is exactly the only list that failed to remain open in the new media criticism&art lists environment, every other list came up with an idea... I am one of those persons whose mails normally don't hit the nettime quality standards or does not fit in the policy, and this also makes me even more than oppose moderation, but besides that, i think nettime failed exactly because of moderation or bad moderation in several respects: - it lost the intimacy of personal communication and personal culture as opposed to commercial and largely spread push content and academic culture - it failed to cover both Western and Eastern underground culture, largely based on the aesthetic of the imperfect *West* or on formal perfection *East* [just think to nettime's resistence to ASCII art and culture, law-fi, or compare this mail of the mod sqaud with a former mod mail http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9802/msg00002.html] - the list suppressed or neglected among others criticism concerning female participation, race politics, multiple cultures, information and network culture - together with the increasing number of subsribers the list gave up somewhere to found the Neue Frankfurter Schule, but it also failed to concentrate on research both in the field of art and media. Somehow first it became a dog driven by the tail of media activism, a term originally coined by Toshia Ueno to describe the task of including subcultures and counter cultures in an interface remaking and changing the public sphere - now look, nowadays even online activism is meant for saving curators of the elite. Meanwhile, together with establishing, the list also became one of the many lists... - moderation is a good ground for abuse, it may exclude alternative views, and favour unjustly other ones, ex aequo et bono it does, and so does nettime's moderation model - just to mention the example of nettime's influence on the syndicate list once started to encourage East and West European art and information exchange, where the two West European moderators failed to recognize a subscriber's East European attitude and identity, and kicked it off the the list without the community's approval, without discussion, and even without letting known the unsubscription. Problems with the nettime moderation started with the rejection of posts that could have been relevant for the list content, goal and manifesto, and ends with the complete change of the character of the list. - Pit Schulz was sighing from his boots in 1996 that there is need of a software for a list, I don't know what happened since than, where is that software? Why did the nettime bold include all the spam, why the list was not set to reject non-subscriber's mail? Even a small list like syndicate, that has no instutional support except for hosting the list on a safe server, experiments much more in the field of information exchange, with the KKnut project for example, that allows direct interaction of URL, text, and a mailinglist. Have a look at http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut/. - if once the nettime meeting took place as a 'let's also do something' alibi when I wanted to go to Venice in 1995, and since i did not get the visa for Italy, i got the nettime list instead of Venice, now, together with the dead of nettime bold, i state that I don't need it anymore, this year I'll make it to Venice, and i am one of the five guards who keep alive the fire of openness at the syndicate list. greetings, Anna Balint 2003.05.28. 19:17:40, the nettime mod squad <nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net> wrote: >Dear Nettimers, > >We are closing nettime-bold. > 19.1 RE: <nettime> Nettime is dead cisler {AT} inreach.com nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sat, 31 May 2003 11:18:58 -0400 Anna Balint's list of complaints about nettime and its moderation trends points to the inherent problems and strengths of moderation, filtering, and focusing. People, ideas, announcements are excluded. She bundles those as examples of abuse. However, in list after list, where there is a very diverse and volatile group and no moderation, you can have a small number of people who can drive large numbers away. The membership may grow, but the cohesiveness of the group (if that's a goal) suffers. My guess is that nettime moderators are trying to balance this. Balint thinks they have failed (and tells us why). I think nettime has worked quite well, though I have come and gone a couple of times. In 2003 there are so many choices for group interactivity besides mailing lists (which are still the most important basic tool). Web-based ones like scoop and drupal allow voting and self-organizing. http://www.drupal.org/ http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/ And there are wikis, and blog wikis, and other new hybrids surfacing each week. Populating those with interesting ideas and people remains the ongoing challenge. Steve 19.2 Re: <nettime> Nettime is dead Ian Dickson nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sat, 31 May 2003 19:06:59 +0100 Interesting debate, that, broadly speaking, says you can't please all of the people all of the time. Maybe we can help. We could implement Nettime in CommKit. CommKit is designed to help build complex scalable communities. This would create a multi themed community which would include, in parallel, sections that were entirely moderated, to areas that were a free for all, and all shades in between. Access would require username/password but once in, a members could configure to operate entirely be email. (This is largely an anti spam, anti abuse feature). Members would control their own experience. So I would probably join a fully moderated area. Others might go moderated, plus join the, for example, unmoderated section of the New Media Arts group. We could also allow non executable attachments (which wouldn't be distributed by email, no point in filling up those dial ups with the latest 10MB video art. Email members would be told that an attachment exists, and that they can get it from the site). This would also be a V2.0 implementation, and so could include the option to allow members to publish searchable info about themselves, thus aiding offline developments. Let me know if you want to explore this. Cheers -- ian dickson www.commkit.com phone +44 (0) 1452 862637 fax +44 (0) 1452 862670 PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England "for building communities that work" 20.0 Re: <nettime> Nettime-bold is <bleep> cpaul nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Thu, 29 May 2003 22:21:22 +1000 On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:17:40 +0200 the nettime mod squad <nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net> wrote: > As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. First, > there was very little interest in it. At its best, nettime-bold had about > 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5% the subscribers nettime-l had. I think these figures serve no useful purpose. I switched to nettime-bold but soon found replies to threads appearing that never made it to nettime-bold in the first place. I posed the question several years ago, and got an explanation of why it happened that way, but we didn't get much further than that. http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-bold-0104/msg00096.html Sort of killed the whole point of being on the bold list for me, so I gave up and went back to nettime-l. I think an unmoderated version of nettime is a good idea -- I would join it, if it worked. I volunteered to help at the time, even met with a moderator to discuss what we could do, but there seemed to be a major resistance going on at the t op. - cpaul 20.1 Re: <nettime> Nettime-bold is <bleep> Eduardo Navas nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 30 May 2003 00:59:32 -0600 > > As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. > > First, there was very little interest in it. At its best, > > nettime-bold had about 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5% > > the subscribers nettime-l had. > > I think these figures serve no useful purpose. (you know the rest from the thread...) <--snip--> ----------------- My response: The key to this dilemma is time. Nettime bold is not successful due to the amount of time it takes to filter all of the submitted material. In an ideal world, all nettimers would have the time to look over every e-mail sent to the bold list, but this is not possible as everyone is attached to some sort of obligation that takes time away from full immersion in possible meaninglessness... I think if the time were available bold would be very successful, but the truth is that most decent publications need editors -- I do not care how decentralized the net may become, this will always be true to some degree. Editors have been around for quite some time in order to subsume noise. Unfortunately, editors (by default) hold a certain priviledged position within the intellectual power structure -- Nettime volunteers are no different. Let us be honest about this and move on. Though I do think the bold list should be made available in some form -- even as messy garbage... who knows, maybe someone could appropriate it as a decadent state of overproductive awareness. Keep on editing, but find some way to leave some (that is where the real challenge is...) Peeezaaccdeee. Eduardo Navas http://navasse.net http://netartreview.net 20.2 Re: <nettime> Nettime-bold is <bleep> Andreas Broeckmann nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Fri, 30 May 2003 09:56:13 +0200 dear cpaul, the whole thing is really easy; you create a mailing list that receives everything sent to nettime-l as a forward; this list is nettime-bold, and you and others can subscribe, communicate etc. on it, as well as push stuff from bold to nettime-l. however, if _you_ don't create and maintain this list, _somebody else_ will have to do it, and i fully understand that the current moderators don't want to be that 'somebody'. maintaining a successful list, incl. communication with confused subscribers, surprised sys-ops, and an ever-growing amount of spam, is time-consuming, and i am surprised why people are not more inventive when it comes to creating alternative channels. all you need to do is ask the nettime mods for including forward inc {AT} fastmedia.net and you get the whole thing unfiltered. become a bold archivist! greetings, -a 20.3 Re: <nettime> Nettime-bold is <bleep> cpaul nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sat, 31 May 2003 02:09:33 +1000 abroeck {AT} transmediale.de wrote: > the whole thing is really easy; you create a mailing list that > receives everything sent to nettime-l as a forward; this list is > nettime-bold > all you need to do is ask the nettime mods for including > > forward inc {AT} fastmedia.net > > and you get the whole thing unfiltered. become a bold archivist! > i am surprised why people are not more inventive when it > comes to creating alternative channels. as such the bold feed had a noticibly degraded signal to noise ratio, since it was missing messages which were not originally sent to the correct nettime-l address. this unfortunately reduced its usefulness as a playground for inventiveness, for archiving, and even for reading by humans. i am not disappointed to see that generation of nettime-bold go. if it gives the moderators troubles, end it. i would like to engage with an unmoderated nettime, but i think the difficulty of accessing a raw feed in its fullness continues recursively. 21.0 Incredibly Important Administrativa, Sort of nettime mettime-l-temp@material.net Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:17:38 +0100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <nettime-l-temp {AT} material.net> is the temporary home of the nettime-l list while desk.nl rebuilds its list-serving machine. please continue to send messages to <nettime-l {AT} desk.nl> and your commands to <majordomo {AT} desk.nl>. nettime-l-temp should be active for approximately 2 weeks (11-28 Jun 99). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [greetings...as of Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:18:58 +0200 (CEST) or so, basis.desk.nl, the computer nettime runs on, has been more or less dead. it's alive in the sense that it receives mail, but dead in the sense that it cannot distribute mail. desk is pre- paring to upgrade the server, but that might take a few weeks. so, until that upgrade is complete, we are moving the task of *distributing* nettime to <material.net>; however, the *incom- ing* addresses will be the same: mail for distribution to the list goes to <nettime-l {AT} desk.nl>, and all majordomo commands-- un/subscriptions--to <majordomo {AT} desk.nl>. while the kludge is in effect, unfortunately, mail will be 'From: nettime.' we'll mangle it so that the subject line includes who actually sent the message. and all messages will have a header and a footer explaining the situation. over the next few days--today being 11 june--we will resend all messages that arrived but seeming- ly were never distributed. we expect this situation will last for about 2 weeks. thanks for being patient. --cheerrrs tb/fs] 22.0 <nettime> kein nettime-l nettime's_mod_squad nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:44:30 +0200 Dear nettimers, For many years, through work and play, the nettime-l moderation team has maintained this list from locations, both banal and exotic, around the world with very little interruption. For lurkers, the break of the last week probably seemed like the usual summer slack; but for those who sent messages to the list, error message may have revealed that something was afoot. The Thing in NYC -- in particular, bbs.thing.net -- has been nettime-l's home since July 1999. However, a reorganization of The Thing's energies and resources has been long overdue. And that, in combination with server problems, put the list offline for the longest time since it made its first move, from desk.nl to a temporary home on material.net. We'd like to offer our sincere thanks to thing.net, and the people who've made bbs.thing.net such a fine home for nettime-l for eight years, almost to the day. In particular, we'd like to thank Wolfgang Staehle for his patient and generous support of the list (as well as many other excellent projects in our neighborhood). Nettime's new home is at kein.org. Kein currently hosts hundreds of lists very effectively, so we're especially grateful to Florian Schneider for graciously setting up the peculiar configuration this list needs. Really, we couldn't have asked for a better technical or social environment. Please not that nettime has now new addresses: -> to post to the list: nettime-l {AT} kein.org -> to reach us: nettime {AT} kein.org -> to un/sub: majordomo {AT} list.kein.org All the rest -- in particular, the archives at nettime.org, maintained by Michael van Eeden at the Waag in Amsterdam -- will remain the same. For those who automatically filter email and/or rely on the list's host or headers to process list traffic, please note that this move will probably require some effort on your part. Ted Byfield Felix Stalder # 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: majordomo {AT} kein.org and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org 23.0 Re: <nettime> kein nettime-l Andreas Broeckmann nettime-l@kein.org Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:09:55 +0200 dear moderators, people at kein.org, fellow nettimers, thanks for the info, and for all the work that must have preceeded this short notice on the move! thanks also to wolfgang, jan and the other people at the thing ny! a lot of what has become possible through your efforts will remain as influential as the infrastructure and labour that it has been based on, is invisible... regards, -a >We'd like to offer our sincere thanks to thing.net, and the people who've >made bbs.thing.net such a fine home for nettime-l for eight years, almost >to the day. In particular, we'd like to thank Wolfgang Staehle for his >patient and generous support of the list (as well as many other excellent >projects in our neighborhood). > >Nettime's new home is at kein.org. # 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: majordomo {AT} kein.org and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org 24.0 <nettime> the we of nettim nettime maillist nettime-l@desk.nl Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:19:14 +0200 dear nettimers appologies for the break. it took a while to check the technique.. this is quite a fat message - you can see it as a practical answer to Jordan's last posting, following Geerts clear and elegant reply. it's a bit paradox, just in the moment we have to discuss a lot, the list is getting 'out of control'. there must be some undercurrent streams which are popping up now in strange ways. after the '5 year plan for nettime' Geert and me posted in January, which was fullfilled until now, even if extremely ambitious, we have now the problem how to deal and distribute the success of nettime without breaking down under the needed restructuring of reaching a new level of organisation which fits to the changed needs. First, it would need a collaborative description of these needs. it's partly just a question of scale, but there are many more questions. to leave me one question here: what problems have nettime and name.space in common? Instead of theorizing i'd like to go to the level where 'i can do something for all of you' without hurting anyone too much. a moment of silence isn't bad for reflection, the question is still if we need moderation and how we decide about it. a basic problem of 'practical democracy'. during the last weeks i got several mail concerning the question of moderating nettime, basically expressing a 'clear yes' (ok, there was one 'better not') so, for the next weeks we will go to the model which was already tested last year and should work as an interim solution until we have found something better. the two channel interim model: the nettime-l mailinglist (moderated - by Geert and me until now) and alt.nettime (unmoderated). both are subscribable. see the how-to below. If this becomes extremely difficult, or if many of you are revolting, we just get back into the old mode again, but i doubt that it will work for long. It is an experiment and it needs your participation critique AND understanding. how to deal with the interim solution: A) alt.nettime: contains *all* mails from nettime-l plus *all* replies. there is (almost) no traffic limit. the best way to use this is via a newsreader: zero scarcity! newsgroup: news://news.thing.at/alt.nettime or news://www.icf.de/alt.nettime or http://www.dejanews.com ... by mail: nettime-t {AT} thing.at alt.nettime {AT} workspace.icf.de (temporary) subscribe to the newsgroup: send mail to listproc {AT} thing.at subscribe nettime-t Your Name <your adress> into the msg body B) nettime-l: like before, but with more editing/moderation. post reports, essays, manifestoes, lectures.. expect some filtered mails appearing at the newsgroup and more pauses between sended text-packets. also see >some questions< below. a special case: announcements one suggestion was to set up an own mailinglist for mail-flyers, (nettime-annouce) which sends out weekly digests. anyone likes to help with this? it could easily grow and would then need an own moderator. before announcements will get compiled into a digest by hand, and if urgent send out immediatly. someone has then to decide which announcements are out of context (private CVs) or spam (commercials). with the double mail from Hotwired lately i wasn't very sure. i would help a lot and add to the quality of nettime if someone else would like to do this independently. some questions: * how to get to know 'who are we, me, you and the rest of us': subjectivation and indentification is still a burden, nettime in a whole did not count too much on it, let's keep it this way. what colour do you have? who is representing your desires? * how to get nettime more 'radical democratic' without destroying it? * how to find, discuss and build up new technical solutions which loose the limited and inherently feudalist model of the majordomo behind? * how to program and design social interfaces and free groupware before nettime has to adapt to given proprietary and closed software standards? * how to keep or put nettime in the hand of the community instead of creating distrust, envy, discordia and a potential abuse of power. * how to keep up the ongoing and still working 'gift economy' of pre- and re-publishing without getting in trouble. * how to let nettime not become a slow discoursive battleship under one central command-and-control-structure. * how to add more critical questions without getting lost in a self-destructive nettime criticism. * how to avoid the creating of splinter groups AND a forced unified will under some unwritten dogmata OR a aporia of noise? * how to continue this experiment with this extraordinary group of mindful people to still let surprises and conflicts happen, but also work on a continuity and effectivity in the discourse (on and of the net). * how to apply technology to enhance and specify the social functionality without loosing coherence and the productive aspects of a working economy of gifts? (is an inner-circle, a group of the oldest nettimers viable, or do we need more 'political apperatus', voting, formal debate... and: how to distribute tasks+responsibilty if there is 'no money in sight'? do we all have to become electronic monks?) * what is a moderator, what are his/her tasks, what are the responsiblities? is there a way to collectify, enhance or distribute the task of moderation without adding more chaos and paranoia. -- hope these questions are not too compromising, any criticism and commentary is welcome, whatever comes in your mind, post it and it will get digested and reposted here. --- 2. next practical projects (new work to be done..): A) the nettime offline archive: as announced long time before, there is a chance now to put the complete nettime archive+zkp1,2,3,4 on a cdrom. (plain ascii nettime archive from June 1995 to September 1997. 3.1/2 inch disc) it will get payed by ars electronica and distributed trough their channels. (le parasite) it will remain public domain for non-commercial use. any suggestion for the cover and the database design and a cool copyright disclaimer are welcome. this weekend a text will follow where every author will get asked for permission. the print run will be around 1000. We try to find a way to make an quick & easy shipping for subribers possible. ZKP4, and the world same counts for the zkp4 which will be soon available trough the v2 archive in Rotterdam, thanks! Ljudmila still sits on ca. 5000 copies. Here in Kassel we will probably will be able to run empty. We sucessfully used the dX postal service (thanks!) and all the authors should now have their private copy. everything else needs extra funding. IF YOU out there like to redistribute ZKP4 (find http://www.factory.org/nettime ) in Australia, Asia or Amerika please go in contact with us. We will try to ship as many as possible copies to Rotterdam where there is a big harbour.. (You might re-sell the copies for the shipping costs.) B) the book also called the nettime bible: a team of some highly engaged nettime editors will meet in Kassel during Sept., this group was growing not at least through the meeting in Ljubljana. we will try to make the process as transparent as possible without playing 'parliament'. there will be a way for every serious nettimer to intervene. we'll work on a raw version of a table of contents sorting and selecting the textes and locate them around 'several planes'. Someone mentioned a comic's section, more graphix etc. It is yet completly unclear who will do this. The first manuscript may get printed soon for common comments. Mieg van Eden at factory.org is currently working on a annotation solution, this will make Paraphernalia (Frank Hartmann) possible and introduces dialogue into a more discoursive text form. C) a better place for the nettime-techies: There is also the idea about setting up the virtual domain nettime.org, Walter van de Cruisen who soon opens a web-multiuser-irc-moo at ZKM will redesign the ZKP-site and downgrades to HTTP1.O. It was long planned to start a technical mini-mailinglist on the software-side of nettime. the collaborative interfaces, publishing tools, e-cash-machines, profile-data-bases, object oriented data heavens, indulgent agents, chat, net-phone, and psychic applets, GNU groupware, nettime-linux, and possible contributions to the content liberation front may get discussed here. Let's bring some theory and practise into a result (or at least some cool plans). if you want to add, your competence, time, brain... please write at this moment to mieg {AT} factory.org or pit {AT} icf.de processing more diversification (as discussed in Ljubljana): SYNDICATE! (ex-east)european issues theoretical and mainly practical, specially if media-art related should go now to the V2East list syndicate {AT} aec.at := Moderator is Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck {AT} v2.nl> who waits for your mail. it's growing and the output of and after the meeting in Kassel is amazing, big future. it is obviously a list with very pragmatic not to say infrastructural goals and it works(?) perfectly as an example of synergetic coexistence in the nettime neighborhood. FACES-L very cyberfeminist issues get discussed in faces-l {AT} icf.de moderators: kathy {AT} thing.at, diana {AT} dial.isys.hu, and Connie Sollfrank <100136.14 {AT} CompuServe.COM> et.al. i heard its very productive and vivid. please have a look at Faith Wilders article posted here on nettime and expect an surprising autumn. other friendly neighbors: Rewired, Rhizome, Telepolis, Ctheory, Mute, Meme, E-minds, Well, RRE, Enode, The Obvious, Netly News and many more (unsorted). who likes to administrate a list of cross-links? it will go onto the desk.nl site and would need some gardening from time to time. ok i don't want to bother you with mroe sermons. it would be great if nettime would get back into the good groove. tell us what you think. /pit ==================================================================== Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 23:20:48 +0300 (EET DST) From: Tapio Makela <director {AT} kaapeli.fi> To: nettime {AT} Desk.nl Subject: Suggestion for Nettime... Dear Pit & other Nettimers, Being aware that no unified "we" is neither possible nor desirable, "we" cannot be a starting point for a constructive discussion in an open list such as Nettime. "We" refers to an understanding of a common ground or an identity somehow negotiated or represented in Nettime. For me, at least, Nettime is not about belonging to a group, but rather voluntarily participating into a flow of writing, discussions, info bits, and nonsense. Hence "us" may merely refer to those on the list without further commitments in terms of one's identity. What surprises me on this list is also a partial closed-mindedness about different positions from which critical perspectives can arise. Perhaps for many artists and scholars in a grant based understanding of independent positionings it is difficult to accept that their economical independence is that only in relation to a private sector. What would that signify? Any of "us" working with new media or any processes that are embedded in technological change, a connectedness to small and also international enterprises is there. I would say that more people on this list are more keen to pinpoint the connections of VR to military industry than their own connectedness to commonplace media industry. State & Art grants are connected to art industry with its own games of power. What I am getting at (to put it short since time is limited tonight and my flu is bugging me off the keyboard) is that polarization of private and public capital in terms of political or critical standpoints is not relevant. At the same time I want to stress, that this remark does not try to argue against public funding, only the (perhaps neomarxist undertoned) tendency to make that polarity a political gauge. Situations for private and public funding certainly have different political ties in each culture. Here in Finland I, as well as many other colleagues, are getting extremely tired, angry, and disappointed of the public cultural funding due to its negativity towards youth & change. Art industry and public funding here are a close marriage, and the space for critical activity therein almost impossible. Hence, the possibility to create independence through other than public sources of funding for critical activities is extremely interesting at the moment. If, through using the innovative cultural and media know how and "our" international networks, it is possible to create such economical enterprises, how could that somehow deteriorate the position of critique? Or is the fact that someone or some group of individuals can generate such a source of economical self support considered as threatening among those who are dependent on it not existing? Supporting the privately generated funding as the only alternative is equally embedded in arhcaic (very current) politics, neo liberalism. Mixed media, mixed capitals, mixed identities is the state of affairs independent of Nettime and any thoughts exressed within. I am not interested in discussing with people who want to attack this position: there is nothing there for me to defend. It is not a position of "my subjectivity" - - only a point of view about some very central issues around "Hybrid Media, Hybrid Capital". If there are others interested in a interdisclipinary analysis of this subject matter, I would like to invite you to do a net publication with me for next year. I will also coordinate a conference next year autumn in Lapland with Hybrid media and capital as a central theme. When both media and capital are seen as hybrids of social, cultural, economical and political layers, no single layer can exist in total isolation from one another. This leads towards a more responsible idea of business, but also a more socially and economically connected "art". For me, no matter in which realm I move, being critical is being political in each realm through texts, acts and interaction. To go briefly back to the idea of "us". Internet as an environment is seen often as far too total, as if its importance was a determining factor of how one performs as an "I". On Nettime, I think, many of the contributors perform as writers, artists, poets, hackers, academics, media activists, off-media activists, or through some other frame of reference. Everyone is seen through their "Name" in the "From" -field, but what does that signify? Like right now, the "I" who writes has still 37,7 degrees of fever, does not use text editing but direct telnet due to something on my web server, I sit inside the Attila Parasite, busy as usual, not enough time to follow all the info bits on Nettime, especially now, ill, too much to do... So being the very random partial "I" on Nettime, as one of the very fragmentary random "us" there is really nothing else to decide about besides how to keep this list as an innovative and constructive environment for potential dialogue - - some of "us" may actually have common interests. Disagreeing on things is necessary, but labeling, info/anti-info campaigns, insulting remarks are frustrating, conradictory to the above aim. How to be critical and constructive at the same time without being "personal" in the negative way, yet remaining "personal" in the many positive fragmentary ways that this interface allows? I would suggest, for this list, at least one thing. What about opening a channel called info.nettime {AT} desk.nl, which would distribute announcements about events, calls for participation, etc, but which would not include debates? Then the nettime list would be left for discussion on issues, texts and debates which have more depth than agreeing about whether 1=3D1 or 1=3D0. In Gordon Cook's case, I see a person who can never admit being wrong (1=3D1). Paul Garrin, who in my mind is very genuinely attempting to create a cultural-critical-economical media hybrid together with other people interested in that approach, uses many arguments to say (1=3D1). But reading G attacking PG and PG defending against G is unnecessary for us to read. But, I do want to read the Name.Space info from Nettime. What is the solution? I would suggest, that on something like info.nettime there could be a ban not to flame, an agreement to keep it cool. Since Nettime is a stage of critical media of a sorts, there are many performeres who just want to be there for textual narcissism. There seems to be too many of them around. This is a problem in any public space. Does someone really like mimics? On the Flesh Factor AE list there is a discussion going on about how there should be more "culture" in discussing "technology", and remarks about how they are really not separate, but intertwined. Quite basic thing, I guess. Surprisingly enough, this similar simplicity appears every now and then when discussing media and society, culture and capital, private and public, x and y, in and endless array. It seems like all the poststructuralist, deconstructive and postmodern varying practices and theories have gone down the drain, just like the past two decades had vapourized in media haze. Could it be that "we" are witnessing a deteriorating of critical discourse into media positivism, a discourse where critical means "being there" and media is taken for being critical? I hope that Nettime will prove the opposite (sic!). back to drink some hot tea, nice late summer from Helsinki, Tapio Makela from Digital Drive In (muu.autono.net/digit) and Parasite project with Attila, Rotterdam, going on www.attila.nl/attila/attila.nl (come see us after a few days) ==================================================================== [redirected, hope it's ok..] Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:48:08 -0500 From: "David S. Bennahum" <davidsol {AT} panix.com> Subject: Time to moderate nettime Pit-- hello. How are you? A quick thing: I think you should begin moderating (or someone else) nettime. The volume is up, the quality is down. I was traveling last week, and was overwhelmed with the nettime pissing contest. This is totally normal for a list when it passes a certain number of participants. Perhaps you could bi-furcate into two lists: unmoderated & moderated. best, db ========================================================================= [from Budapest] Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 01:40:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Steven Carlson <steve {AT} pk4.com> Subject: enough homework already ... > The following is a homework assignment for Cook and Byfield (and anyone > else who subscribes to their baseless mutterings): Enough is enough. Paul, I have followed your name.space project with some degree of interest, but I have to draw the line here. I strongly object to the arrogant tone of your messages. If you care at all for your project then I urge you to stop and cool down. You're not likely to persuade people or win support if you address the list in this fashion. And that's the point, isn't it? Name.space is technically feasible, but in order to make it *real* you need to persuade people to use it in significant numbers. Thus, name.space depends on PR. > Instead of being the curmudgeons scowling in the corner waiting for and > opportunity to piss on everyone, try and do/say something constructive > for a change. Is this constructive behavior? With all due respect, you're behaving like a child, Paul, and this hardly adds credit to your cause. Name.space has so far won considerable support from the nettime crowd, in particular Geert and Pit. You're not doing your cause any good at the moment. I suggest that you change your tune and apologize. Steven Carlson =========================================================================== [from NewYork] Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:49:29 -0400 From: mf {AT} mediafilter.org (MediaFilter) Subject: CPSR Response to USDoC Notice of Inquiry on the Future of DNS While reading the comments posted on the last day of the USDoC's Notice of Inquiry on the Future of DNS, I came across many echos of the issues that Name.Space has been campaigning for since its beginning. Go there and read the comments.... ATT's proposal has points which support or even directly echo issues that Name.Space has promoted and discussed (although there are some points that Name.Space does not agree with). ATT has visited Name.Space many times, as evidenced by server logs. Then I came across the comments from the CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) and it almost reads like the "Name.Space Manifesto". I should have hired them for my PR! :) Although CPSR, in its statement to the USDoC, does not specifically mention Name.Space as a single entity, that Name.Space and CPSR largely and autonomously share the same consensus, is clear. How CPSR arrived at its recommendations is irrelevant. Read on... Cheers. Paul Garrin --------------------CPSR Comment Follows--------------------------- From: Glenn B. Manishin <glenn {AT} technologylaw.com> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 8/18/97 9:17am Subject: CPSR Comments on Internet Domain Names [.../p] CC: "Glenn Manishin" <glenn {AT} technologylaw.com> Before the UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20230 In the Matter of ) ) Request for Comment on Registration ) Docket No. 970613137-7137-01 and Administration of Internet ) Domain Names ) COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Aki Namioka, President Glenn B. Manishin Harry Hochheiser Michael D. Specht Andy Oram Christine A. Mailloux Computer Professionals for Social Blumenfeld & Cohen - Technology Law Group Responsibility <http://www.technologylaw.com> <http://www.cpsr.org/home.html> 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 700 P.O. Box 717 Washington, D.C. 20036 Palo Alto, CA 94302 202.955.6300 415.322.3778 Counsel for CPSR Dated: August 18, 1997 The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) <http://www.cpsr.org/ home.html>, by their attorneys, submit these comments in response to the Notice <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm> released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov> soliciting public input on the present and future systems for registration and administration of Internet domain names. SUMMARY The current controversy over the Internet=D5s Domain Name System (DNS) raises important questions about how the Internet, as a decentralized, global medium, should be administered and governed. While much of the Internet was invented and originally funded by the US Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation (NSF) <http://www.nsf.gov/>, and although its governing institutions were initially established and sanctioned by the American government, the Internet=D5s technical standards and basic policies have in fact been set by a number of ad hoc, consensus-based consortia comprised of Internet service providers, engineers and users. This system worked for a long time because of the shared goals and technical sophistication of the Internet=D5s original academic-based user community. See And How Shall the Net Be Governed?, by David R. Johnson & David G. Post <http://www.cli.org/ emdraft.html>. But increasing commercialization and explosive growth have begun to strain the consensus-driven process of Internet administration. The strong and widely publicized reactions of many providers and users (and foreign governments) against the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed by the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) <http://www.iahc.org> for revisions to Internet domain name registration and administration <http://www.gtld-mou.org/> show that the stakes are high and that more open, considered and perhaps formal mechanisms for Internet self-governance -- and for evaluating alternative DNS proposals -- are called for in the present environment. In these comments, CPSR focuses on proposals for reforming DNS with a view toward maintaining open Internet self-government, introducing competition into Internet domain name administration, separating DNS management from trademark protection, and supporting the continued growth of the Internet itself. (CPSR addresses each section of the NTIA Notice, and as requested our comments in Sections II-VI follow the organization of the Notice.) As discussed more fully below, CPSR -- a public interest alliance of information technology professionals and others concerned about the impact of computer technology on society, founded in 1981, with over 1,400 members and 22 chapters nationwide -- believes that DNS is too important to the structure of the Internet for DNS =D2reform=D3 to proceed in a hasty or ill-conceived manner, particularly without adequate input from consumers and other users of the Internet. Whatever its merits, the IAHC process was closed, rushed and unbalanced, leading to a proposal that should not be endorsed by the US government. CPSR commends NTIA for commencing this open, thorough public airing of DNS issues, and for its express acknowledgment that DNS reform, like other aspects of Internet governance, should remain a matter for the Internet community itself, not national or international government agencies. CPSR proposes that changes to the current DNS model must reflect the twin goals of maintaining Internet self-governance, thus minimizing government=D5s substantive role in Internet administration, while avoiding the continuation of de facto DNS monopolies in the increasingly commercialized Internet. We also emphasize, however, that there is no present =D2crisis=D3 in DNS administration that requires hasty implementation of any system for DNS reform, including those proposed by IAHC, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) <http://www.netsol.com/ papers/internet.html> and others. Unlike IAHC or NSI, CPSR believes that the twin aims of competitive Internet services and non-governmental Internet administration can and should be applied to the DNS system. A sensible plan for DNS reform combines the better elements of both the IAHC and NSI proposals, while jettisoning others. In this light, CPSR proposes the following principles for reform of the Internet DNS system: A. The Internet domain name registration process should be opened to competition for all existing and newly created generic top-level domains (gTLDs). 1. Shared gTLDs should be administered by competing registrars, with restrictions imposed only based on any technical limitations. 2. No registrar (NSI or others) should enjoy a proprietary interest or commercial "ownership" of any gTLD, including ".com". B. Domain registration should be separated from trademark issues. Registrars should not be involved in trademark dispute resolution, but rather should refer all trademark issues to appropriate national and international judicial bodies. C. The Internet's "root" server administration responsibilities should be coordinated and centralized in order to assure reliability and scaleability of the Internet. D. The DNS reform process and ongoing DNS administration should be handled in an open, balanced and non-governmental manner, with full participation by consumers and small commercial entities, in addition to trademark owners. 1. International quasi-governmental organizations (ITU, WIPO, OECD, etc.) should have no formal role in Internet governance or domain name registration. The extensive new bureaucracy for domain name management and oversight proposed by IAHC, including a Swiss-based Council of Registrars (CORE), a Policy Advisory Board (PAB) <http://www.pab.gtld-mou.org> and a higher level interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC), is unnecessary and counterproductive. 2. National governments (Commerce, DOD, etc.) have no necessary role in DNS administration except for ISO 3166 TLDs (e.g., ".us," ".de," etc.) and maintaining fair, open and competitively neutral Internet self-governance organizations. 3. The IAHC process was inconsistent with open Internet self-governance and biased towards trademark owners. With encouragement from NTIA, the Internet Society (ISOC) should be required to open up the process to permit full debate by the global Internet community on DNS practices. The absence of any "crisis" in domain name resources allows for thoughtful and deliberate consideration of DNS issues. 4. Hasty implementation of the IAHC approach will continue to splinter the Internet community and would unnecessarily involve international quasi-governmental organizations in Internet governance. The DNS reform process should be slowed in order to permit achievement of a consensus approach that all interest groups (including Internet users/consumers) can support. No "rush to reform" is necessary. 5. The US government should not endorse, and should actively oppose, intervention by ITU and WIPO in the DNS administration process. The government should not attempt to unilaterally dictate any specific domain name registration process for gTLDs, which are global Internet resources. [good luck! to be continued... ] =========================================================================== Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:51:04 +0100 From: Patrice Riemens <patrice {AT} xs4all.nl> Subject: a semi-open letter to Paul Garrin semi-open letter, because nettime is a semi-closed mailing-list ;-) Dear Paul, For something that looks like ages now, I have been following the name.space saga on nettime. It is surely our longest lasting tele-novela (tele for telenet, of course), and I must say, I thoroughly enjoy it, and find it very informative. I also think nettime is and will remain the right platform to project & discuss the name.space issue as part of the general internet politics, was it only since if it was not in nettime, where would I be able to get all that information? Now, the main visible (as opposed to substantial) characteristic of the name.space saga as it evolves on nettime seems to be its volcanic quality, whereby you play the role of some kind of very ill-humored Dante's Peak, out to engulf all those who dissent with you in a fierce pyroclastic storm. Like a seemingly increasing number of readers of this list, I think the point has been reached where this approach damages rather than serves your cause. Over the last weeks you have - again - become more and more strident (and in the process also a bit (c)rude), about people harbouring doubts about any or all aspects of the name.space project, something I feel is everybody's good right. You also made (IMMO) the mistake of taking criticism of name.space for criticism of your own person and/or your bona fides, whereupon you saw it fit to return the compliment. In so doing you look and sound increasingly, excuse the dutch word, "verongelijkt" (something like "put against one's will in a situation of not being right/believed". Now Leibniz said that dutch was probably the best language to write philosophy in (some home-work for Byfield, Cook & Stahlman here...), so let me explain my point further. There is another dutch expression, which says that there is a big gap between "gelijk hebben" (to be right) and "gelijk krijgen" (to be accepted as being right). To me that seems to subsume your situation in the name.space issue. I'd like to add: this is not a drama, and every one of us, especially the somewhat maverick/marginal/mal-pensants type that constitute this nettime "movement", is more or less constantly in this situation. Now I have always considered the name.space project as a very good initiative, and I continue to do so. (if you want to know why my name does *not* appear on the petition: my browser/machine could not locate it!). I have gladly, if very modestly, supported it, and I think it has many merits, was it only to make a lot of racket among those who would wish to take over the Internet without anybody noticing. I do not buy everything you say be it about name.space commercial viability, or its support of artists, or its technical feasibility in general, not only by what I am able to judge by myself (in technical matters: next to nil), but also because of the criticism I hear/read, all of which is not as totally silly, biased, and incompetent as you choose to portray it. But I need not to agree with everything in order to think of name.space in terms 'globally positive' (to borrow a phrase from good'ol French Communist Party parlance...). And I think that would be the opinion of the majority of the people on this list, but I fear that you are eating into, rather than expanding that majority. So my modest advice to you Paul, with all due respect for your manifold activities and initiatives (or rather: because of them), would be: chill out! Cut the vindicative pronouncements about people disagreeing with you. And of all the homework you assign other people (I fear to think what might come my way!), do just one item yourself: #8 : smile! As I know you, you're very good at it. With very best wishes and kind regards, patrice =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:28:34 -0400 From: Tilman Baumgaertel <Tilman_Baumgaertel {AT} compuserve.com> Subject: Bibles Geert wrote: >>> By the way, there are several Bibles in the making now (a quick, thick and dirty one and an academic American anthology). <<< Are we going to learn at one point what these "Bibles" contain? I am an atheist, and wouldn't want to find my postings in anything called "bible", especially without knowing about it. I don't mind if the material from this list gets xeroxed occasionally. But this summer the ZKP 4 reader seems to pop up on every single event I go to. And if the postings from this list appear in academic anthologies, it becomes an entirely different matter. I don't understand why every little posting form this list has to be printed "quick and dirty" on paper to begin with, when there is a handy online archive at the factory-server. [general question: why doesn't the paperless office, book, academia, entertainment exist yet? general answer: we live still in a hybrid media culture and that's what makes it interesting.] I don't even think that everything that goes over this list is worth saving or publishing - just think of the embarrasing flame war between Garrin and Cook last weekend. Would anybody want to see it in print how two grown-up men tell each other not to pee in their pants? [a bit more trust in the moderators?] Don't get me wrong: I highly appreciate the effort that you, Geert and Pit, have put into setting up nettime and keep it running. And I feel indebted to you for creating this context from which I personally gained a lot. I met people I probably would have never met without nettime, and established important relationships with some of them. I also made use of nettime material for my work as journalist, and I tried to contribute to the nettime context by posting some of my own work. But now it looks like nettime is turning into a publishing house or a content generator for print publications. That's why I think that some clarification of the issue of "bibles" (content, distribution of the "quick and dirty" one, etc) would be in place. [don't hurry, like before: no profit will be made finally, and if then it will get reinvested. let's continue to think about an 'author collective' without becoming an institution or a company, networks of trust. that there is content with a certain value here, should be out of question, that the moderators are not "running away with the server", too. whoever read until here, please comment on this and we will compile a next digest. Q: What kind of publication you would imagine as the best of all possible for nettime?? How it would look like? Where you will get it?] Yours, Tilman ============================================================================= --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de 24.0-p.471 Re: <nettime> what is going on, on nettime? Alan Sondheim nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:53:39 -0400 (EDT) It's not only what moves people these days, but how people are moved, and, to be honest, how one wants to move them. It's a question on the one hand, of course, of political/political economy, especially for some of us, bandwidth/distribution economy - but it's also a question of language and languaging itself, which is where, uncomfortably and belligerantly, nn comes into play, as well as codework. As I wrote you - I'd like to see the Unstable Digest started up again, by Florian if he wants, or if not, I can work with other people on it - the balance was wonderful. There's a related issue, and that is, that what moves people is always open to exploration, to wonder - for me, that's what holds my interest in codework and its ilk, nn and jodi even now, and many others working across net media. - Alan recent http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko WVU 2004 projects http://www.as.wvu.edu/clcold/sondheim/files/ Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm partial mirror at http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt 24.0-p.471 <nettime> what is going on, on nettime? geert nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:14:50 +0000 Well... Alan, nettime being closed off because of lacking nn postings. Many will find a relief that such postings and related debates no longer happen, but that's perhaps a personal matter. What might be true is the shift towards political economy, away from arts and culture. The political economy (of new media) thread has been part of nettime from day one, at least in my understanding. And I am not sure that one can find these debate anywhere. It could be the case that the international nettime list lack a common spirit and direction. Is that what you mean? The question could be: what moves people these days? I think that's a more interesting--and urgent--question than the old issue of 'censoring' nn or mez. Yours, Geert From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim {AT} panix.com> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre {AT} lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> Subject: [-empyre-] what is going on, on nettime? (fwd) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:20:22 -0400 nettime-l seems increasingly closed off; numerous voices aren't heard any more, for example nn, mez, Talan - I wrote them asking why the list is turning from cultural politics to more or less straight political economy, which can be found anywhere - the post was censored. Florian Cramer just stopped the Unstable Digest - there's no more codework there at all - he left his co-editors more or less in the lurch, not answering email, then disappearing, now back on nettime with politics. So that venue's gone and apparently at this point one can't even question the list direction onlist. <...> 25.0 <nettime> Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) nettime's_digestive_system nettime-l@desk.nl Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:58:48 +0100 From: Josephine Berry <josie {AT} metamute.com> Subject: On Lurking Since we're currently engaged in list metaphysics.... I should start by declaring myself to be a virtually full-time, unrepentant and chronic LURKER. And let's face it, where would you all be without us? This legion of quivering intellectual rabbits whose awe of the post-it intelligentsia is so great that we'd almost rather cut off our right hands than hit that send button. Nettime without LURKERS would be like Hollywood without the opiated masses or football without larger louts - no fun and bad business. What is wrong with bystanders? Why the shamefull denigration of the word LURKER? Is it supposed to make us feel like naughty school chilren or criminals:"Stop lurking around out there, and put your hands where we can see them!". Where would all you performers be without your audience anyway? Who would bother to pay you those royalties if us drones didn't queue up dutifully to consume your wares? No, but SERIOUSLY: most of us know how great the fear threshold is to posting, but that doesn't mean that LURKERS are a bunch of labotomised victims sucking pre-chewed life through a straw. And - whilst I'm up here suffering on this soap-box - I'd say that LURKERS shouldn't be admonished but encouraged. Why? Because they help form the community within which this all happens and because they give an n-dimensionality to events which means that posteurs can't be sure of their audience and what they're thinking. Uncertainty is useful, it makes us sharpen our wits and back-up our arguments. It means we never know which conversations are being had where beyond all of Nettime's eight circles. It means that what can't be measured can't be instrumentalised. [Gospel chorus reaches its stirring climax and then dies away] Yours without shame, Lurkers Anonymous \- - - 1- - - / / \ 1 / \ / \- - 1 - -/ \ 1 //\\ 1 //\\ 1 ///\\\ 1 ///\\\ u t e : 2nd floor, 135-139 Curtain Rd, London EC2A 3BX. - - -* - -\\\1///- - * - - - - - - T: +44 171 613 4743/ F: +44 171 613 4052 1 \ / 1 \ / - - - - E: josie {AT} metamute.com/ W: www.metamute.com 1 \ / 1 \ / / \ /- - 1 - -\ / \ / 1 \ / /- - - 1 - - -\ ------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:21:57 +0300 From: John Hopkins <hopkins {AT} iex.net> Subject: Reposting I would kindly suggest that everything that Ted-the-Moderator rejects/filters be reposted -- as a nettime.indigestible -- to nettime.free -- ascii art of the highest calibre... John ------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:36:45 +0100 From: P Nathan <pacoid {AT} fringeware.com> any effort to couch the "nettime.free" spectacle in terms of "electronic disturbance", "millenial hysteria", etc., within an international medium such as Spiegel-Online, would pose a an additional modus for marginalizing those people who do real work in these areas. i find that intent appalling. the "nettime.free" tagline of "Speak freely or Unsubscribe!", which counterposes two contradictory antecedents (since one can neither speak via their list nor unsubscribe from it) is the entire point to their performance. why aggrandize it any further when there are much more salient stories in our midst? pxn FringeWare ------ From: "A. Cinque Hicks" <cinque {AT} kdi.com> Subject: still more on moderation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now I see that accusations of forgery, fraud, and hoax are being thrown around freely with regard to nettime.free. Real list? Net.art? The difference is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the "schism" (if that's not too dramatic a word) says about this particular sphere of human relations. I share Armin Mendosch's sense that what has become a partisan bash-fest is useless at best, and destructive at worst. When I signed on (very recently) I quickly understood that this was mainly a forum for cerebral discussion on relatively academic topics. Fine. I have appreciated much of what's been written here and find the forum very useful not in spite of, but *because of* its formality. Again, fine. Apparently that wasn't fine with some people. They were free to leave and elected to do so. Again, fine. This doesn't have to be taken as a threat (questions of nettiquette, bracketed for a moment here). What we have had here has been in my experience a sort of "night at the opera," a highly structured environment that was never meant for random shouts and murmers. Some people have decided that they would rather be at home with shoes off, listening to the radio. So what? That's okay, too. I for one welcomed the idea of having two forums to serve two different purposes, and had planned on staying subscribed to both. (Again, setting aside for a minute the questionable etiquette through which this came about.) And as I understood it, at least one nettime moderator was all for the idea of having other lists if people felt the need for them. Yes, yes, I see that nettime.free positioned *itself* in a combatitive posture. I simply ignored that, and would urge other people to do the same. If I have been misguided in these observations, I'm sure someone will let me know. peace, ch ------- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:13:10 +1000 From: colin hood <pants {AT} flex.com.au> within particular artistic communities - german romantics had a real knack for it - the 'agonistics', polemics were the catalysts for advancement of thought and philosophical fine-tuning - a polemical community' ....it had a feel good ring to it (on better days of epistolary/salon aggravation). Today - the refined culture of aversarial politics has - largely imploded - leaving a lot of (many net players) unable to reflect, 'repent' - reshape attitudes on the fly ... im not surpised that the latest micropolitical 'sideshow-bloodfest' has produced very little discussion on the complex politics of moderation. If moderation performs more of an editorial function - in an incremental, asynchronous manner, then one must up the ante on rethinking the time and place for blue-pencilling, not returning 'phone calls', playing daddy 'in extremis. colin hood --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo {AT} desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} desk.nl 25.1 <nettime> Re: on moderation and spams (several messages) nettime's_digestive_system nettime-l@desk.nl Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:50:26 +0100 To: post {AT} nettime.free.xs2.net From: Matthew Fuller <matt {AT} axia.demon.co.uk> Subject: a proposal What concerns me here is to open-up a situation where the 'community' which nettime 'free' ostensibly intends to make its intervention on behalf of, isn't actually done a disservice by the instigation of this list. There is an opportunity now to meet the obvious demand (of whatever size) for a zero or low filtration channel that works in some kind of relationship with nettime-l. One political banner that has been raised over the start of this mailing list is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is as clearly a con in this case as elsewhere. It is a rhetorical manoeuvre that worked well in the context of the Eighteenth Century in defining a potential political subject against monarchy and colonialism. It is not nuanced enough to deal with this context. As a historical refrain Freedom of Speech is a metaphor for interfacing a political/ technical reality that it largely misses. That is why the demands for a completely unfiltered mailing list ring entirely true when taken solely on their own ideological terms but founder into absolutism or bad design when attempts to realise them are made. People constructing mailing lists should look closely at what they are doing: creating systems of enunciation. This is what we need to make happen with regard to this matter - a close attention to the implicit politics of the technology. We need to look at what collaborative filtering, networks, etc. actually mean and can be made to do. In the context of a list or lists focused on critical thinking about networks, coupled with the technical abilities of people to go beyond rhetoric into actual construction, one would hope that this might be done with the careful attention it deserves. This is not a call for a technocratic solution. The tools to deal with this situation already exist and can be developed in the texts, people and machines on the list. At the moment it seems unclear whether the intention behind nettime.free is to maintain any relationship with nettime-l, or any of the other variations on the list. If not, it might well be useful to make it clear. Obviously a first step towards this would be to immediately stop the compulsory subscription of nettime-l subscribers to the new list. If the intention for the launch of this new list is in fact to provide a channel for all the material which is filtered from nettime-l, and not for instance to start a new list with other foci of attention, or to merely duplicate what nettime-l already does, then arrangements need to be made to make sure that happens in a thorough and open manner. As one of the people involved in moderation of the nettime-l list, but not here or anywhere else speaking on behalf of the group, I am quite happy to state that the filtering is minimal and careful. However, since the demands have been made to remove filtering from the list and someone is clearly prepared to provide server-space for this to be done there is an obvious opportunity for this demand to be met. Perhaps what is needed first is for people wanting a strictly unfiltered mailing list for critical writing on the net and related areas to decide what they actually want, and what relationship, if any, it should have to the current nettime. If no relationship is wanted, then it might well be useful to change the name of this list from nettime.free and to make this clear. There is of course the possibility that the initiation of this list is purely designed as a temporary intervention without any commitment to continued work on the list. This would be a waste of everyone's time. PROPOSAL Working on the assumption that there is not just a desire but an actual commitment to continue a connection between nettime-l and nettime.free, what I suggest is that it is possible to find a way for nettime.free to become the unfiltered channel to nettime-l that has been discussed but never implemented, rather than split off into a separate list. If it is done well, this is a good opportunity to distribute the work and infrastructure involved and to satisfy the demand for a list with none or little filtering as well as for a filtered list. If this is to be the case I guess the key question is how do we ensure that: - (whether destined for filtering or not) posts don't slip through the cracks - multiple postings are unnecessary - the 'free' list receives all the material that is filtered from 'nettime-l' Subsequently, it might of course be necessary to look at filtering levels for the unfiltered list. Bounce messages, requests for unsubscription, and spam from entirely irrelevant address harvesting senders, etc. etc. This could be a relatively simple process. 1. Texts destined for both lists would be in the first instance mailed to the nettime-l address. 2. Posts that are unfiltered from the nettime-l list would have their headers stripped and text formatted as usual and sent to this list. 3. Posts that would normally be filtered from nettime-l would, instead of being deleted, be forwarded to the nettime.free address. The headers of these posts could subsequently be stripped and the text formatted at whatever level is deemed useful by the moderators of the nettime.free list. It might in time be seen to be necessary to introduce some level of filtering in this context. This model still allows for people to post solely to nettime.free, allowing the possibility of 'self-filtering' from nettime-l. So long as there was clarity in the footer / FAQ etc. of both lists about the function of the two channels ensuring that this is not done by mistake this should not pose any problem. An alternative to this is to revert back to one mailing list and to open a distinct unfiltered channel if it is clear that there is an actual demand for, and commitment to, maintaining this channel. It is useful that dissatisfaction with the nettime list has been matched with the technical capacity to act. Now what is needed is for this act not merely to evaporate into a gesture, but to match itself again with thought, communication - and more construction. First though, allow people to unsubscribe. Matthew Fuller From: Peter van der Pouw Kraan <peter {AT} xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: Welcome to Nettime.Free! >Welcome to NETTIME.FREE, the renewed, UNMODERATED AND OPEN >Revival of the Nettime Community! I follow this list a while out of curiosity, but also feel offended, because I never subscribed to it. I would have preferred to get one announcement only and then to have the free choice to subscribe or not. >Once again, there is an OPEN LIST for Nettime, free of >any unwanted censorship, Sounds somewhat surprising to me. You mean in this list there will only be the wanted censorship? Then again you have the problem what is tolerated and who will decide. There is no reason to expect that everybody will agree about everything. Different opinions about what is acceptable are inevitable on a mailinglist with many members, it's inherent to the mainlinglist as an open social system. Also without a moderator. It just depends on coincidental events when the discussion about this starts. And imo it's very easy to play jerk and provoke this discussion with some very unwanted mail. > hidden agendas, personal tastes, It's rather common that members of communities have their own agendas. And messages about net.art, media, etc without personal tastes just seem impossible to me. >anal-retentive book editors/librarians, respiratory diseases, >and other information-hostile elements that have corrupted >the intial mission of the nettime list as established by the >founders of Nettime in Venice, June, 1995. Are some personal conflicts fighted here over the back of nettime members who, like me, have no clue what this is about? >No more digestion/indigestion...just free flow of information! Please no. I find free flow of information as presented here a naive concept. As if you just would open a tap on Internet and the free flow of information streams out. Yes in the sink. The problem is that I only want relevant information. And I haven't got all the time of the world to sort it out. More theoretical: a community exists because of a meaningfull communication among the members and with an environment. This takes place in a limited amount of time. What selection takes place, what is filtered out, constitutes the character of a community. And there is a fysical limit on the amount of communication: time. Within this limit the relevant information has to be sent and received. Selection is a vital condition for a community not to die in information overload. No selection, no community. The point is not whether selection takes place or not, but how. The ideal situation is that selection takes place at the source: contributors voluntarily restrict themselves to the subject of mailinglists, newsgroups or debates i.r.l., are clever enough to understand what the subject is, and there is an agreement about what belongs to the subject. But ideal situations tend to be seldom. An open mailinglist is an extremely vulnarable proces of communication. So how to keep it working, how to select? Sometimes a have the feeling that the naivity of the sixties got a revival among Internet-enthousiasts and that the founding of nettime.free is one of the symptoms. Peter van der Pouw Kraan (peter {AT} xs4all.nl) ------- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:15:52 -0800 From: "Michael H. Goldhaber" <mgoldh {AT} well.com> Subject: Moderation in all things? Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams I too would like to express my support and thanks to the Nettime moderators, or filterers. Obviously, to be able to use a delete button wisely, one has to have some idea of what one is deleting, and that takes scarce attention. By taking on that task, nettime filterers put us in their debt, even if, inevitably, were any other one of us the filterer, that person would surely choose a little differently. Any active listserv and its overall output can be of value only if it is in the hands of only a few guiding intelligences at any one time, and it is to those minds that at least some of the attention to the list must go. There is a deep point here, and not always such a pleasing one: that pure democracy can never operate, except at an extremely small scale. No matter how much everyone on the list might support notions of equality and democracy, thoughts which some think quite important will get shut out. Trust must be placed in some few, no matter how they ended up as moderators; of course, the trust is highly conditional; if they abuse it, we stop paying attention. Yet while they have it from anyone, they have real and unequal power, as do those whose work they find worthy of attention. I also want to agree with Josephine Berry. We lurkers (as I usually have been of late) help make the list workable, by refraining from seeking attention when we feel we have little to add. Finally, all that said, no matter how unreasonable the position of the "nettime.free" founders might be, its (apparently) brief insurrection did generate a burst of intellectual excitement, and it ultimately probably increases the value and solidarity of nettime. Utopian extremism has its value too. Best, Michael H. Goldhaber mgoldh {AT} well.com http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/ ----- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:49:23 +0100 From: "Erich Moechel" <erich-moechel {AT} quintessenz.at> Subject: unsubscribe both lists dear owners.nettime socalled free or not if any of ur mailers accepts this message (standard mime encoded always a problem) would u please unsubscribe me. I am tired of one artsy fartsy party accusing the other of being nomenKlatura. there has been clos 2 no collective text filtering the last year but extensive manifestoing & behaviour of certain protagonists a lesser pr/agency would be ashamed of. This is not the list Pit Schulz & Frank Hartmann pointed me 2 in 96. I never contributed much -confess: except flaming mr barlow once that was truly easy ;) cu somewhere else erich -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- q/depesche taeglich ueber internationale hacks--.-zensur im netz crypto--.-IT mergers--.-monopole & die universalitaet digitaler dummheit subscribe http://www.quintessenz.at -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- Certified PGP key http://keyserver.ad.or.at -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- erich-moechel.com/munications ++43 2266 687201 fon ++43 2266 687204 fax -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- ------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:02:34 -0400 From: Jennifer Hicks <jghicks {AT} wordswork.com> To: nettime's_digestive_system <nettime {AT} Desk.nl> Subject: Re: on lurking At 09:58 PM 10/13/98 +0100, Josephine Berry eloquently wrote: >No, but SERIOUSLY: most of us know how great the fear threshold is to >posting, but that doesn't mean that LURKERS are a bunch of labotomised >victims sucking pre-chewed life through a straw. Brava! Brava! Jennifer Hicks... with full mental capacities and living life in its undigested form, who choses to unlurk when intelligence in its many forms are recognized. --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo {AT} desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} desk.nl 26.0 <nettime> Surprise Attack: Re-Routing Nettime MediaFilter nettime-l@desk.nl Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:42:16 -0400 Re-Routing Nettime: An Exercise in Electronic Disturbance Surprise "Columbus Day Outing" By Paul Garrin Personal note: My sincerest apologies to anyone who was offended or inconvenienced by this exercise. It was not intended in any way to be malicious or aimed at any specific persons or groups in any way other than in comedic parody. Blasphemy in the face of Orthodoxy As in when Sinead O'Connor ripped up a photo of the Pope on live television. Bad PR for Sinead because she was unclear, or misunderstood. I won't allow that to happen here, although it may because some people will pre-judge and tune this out. That's their choice. Perhaps some of them already understand what this is about, although not what it appears to be on the surface. Things are not always as they seem. It's all a matter of perception, and how that perception can be "managed". Nettime was "re-routed" temporarily. It was a terribly rude intrusion that disregarded every tenent of "nettiquette". It could have been done silently, by simply opening up another channel, without the rude intrusion into the order--or what has become the "Orthodoxy of Nettime", but that would have served only to turn a blind eye and a mute tongue some of the events unfolding outside this list that have an adverse impact on all of your future access, privacy, security and autonomy online. It was an act of "Disturbance" using counterintelligence tactics to sow discord amongst a group and display its poles of affiliations and sympathies. It's to show how easy it is to do this, but no indication of how subtle something of this nature can be, so the rudeness was intended. It was a loud intrusion in many people's minds, not only because of what was sent over the open channel, but that the channel was opened in the first place without their permission. The flame-bait was a convenient element to make it as rude as possible although it wasn't directed at any one individual alone, but at the attitudes being parodied by the Nettime.Free message. Any interpretation of that information is totally up to the reader. The message was _meant_ to provoke. And what it got was the expected chain reaction of pettiness and insults in return. A very funny assortment of stuff, I must say. Another attempt to deconstruct this event may contain some of those responses, perhaps even as rendered by antiorp ;-) so he can print it out and hang it all over some wall that he's trying to climb to get noticed in the "artworld". (I forgive the kid--he's young and everybody wants to be famous). This call to action is a wake up call, in the spirit of Electronic Disturbance. A "weekend outing", a "Columbus Day Raid" The insulting tone of the list was the "agent provocateur" whose mission it was to sow discord even if it meant drawing fire. (I didn't try very hard to cover my tracks. In fact, I didn't.) I just switched on the server and left it alone, while inadvertently leaving the subciribe commands disabled...and the server ran away! Sorry about that. Hope the few extra messages in your mailbox didn't ruin your day. If it did, then please, log out and go out and take a walk, you've been online too long. Rerouting Nettime was a staged "exercise" as an "operation" using an emotional trigger...otherwise known as a "Psychological Operation" or PsyOps. In this case, it was insulting implications about members of the Nettime Moderation Team, and the users having information "forced" upon them without their choice. Some people call it "dirty tricks". That's what it was. You have to experience dirty tricks so you can begin to understand them. One of the purposes of this exercise was to personalize an experience within a fairly large and somewhat diverse group and exploit the differences. The scenario involved several elements: Identify a target group: Nettime Identify discordant issues: Moderation, Moderators, Ideologies Identify sympathetic affiliations: pro moderation/con moderation Identify exploitable conditions: subscribers complain about moderation Provoke confrontation: Clone the list and run it on another server that is not managed by the moderators thereby removing their control over content flow although the list itself has not changed. Use a provocative message to polarize the group. This resulted in opposing elements aligning in blocks defining further affiliations and sympathies. Unforseen elements subscription requests proc inadvertently disabled introduce added resulted in loss of subscriber control and chaos added to the outrage when users could not "unsubscribe" This leads to speculation and rumors about the list operator and his intentions, and insults and insinuations are spread. Intended result: it calls into question many issues concerning current events that effect our access, privacy, and autonomy on the internet and many are turning a blind eye just when issues are being decided behind closed doors which will affect thier future access, privacy, security, and autonomy on the net and probably off the net as well. It's time to focus on strategies that will educate and empower each other to protect our future of free choice and free will, and not a time to sink into complacency and inaction. The beginning of discussion and action. For more dirty tricks, please see: http://info.war/uncensored http://infowar.net/uncensored 27.0 [-empyre-] … once upon a time ... Melinda Rackham <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> Sun Jun 2 14:02:44 EST 2013 hello -empyre- That it is eleven and a half years since I sent out invitations to 50 people to join -empyre- is quiet unbelievable! I was looking for that original email invitation however it seems to have been lost several laptops ago - instead I've located an article from September 2002... an archival window into -empyre- as a fast growing 9 month old baby... At that time I was writing my Phd, building non propriety 3d worlds, and -empyre- was instigated as a forum to discuss theoretical issues around virtual and media art practices. The early -empyre- years ended for me in late 2005, participating only sporadically while I was Director of ANAT, then curating in Australia and China. My last -empyre- discussion was Manifest Dynasty: Media Arts in China, co-moderated with Edward Sanderson in November 2010. For anyone interested there is a fascinating archive of the early guests and topics here - http://www.subtle.net/empyre/guests.html My personal -empyre- era seems forever ago. Currently I'm totally enjoying being off grid - researching a book titled Attachment - exploring forced adoption, loss and identity formation. The work is primarily autobiographical; seamed by the fictions of virtual and imagined reality; anchored by the psychology of Attachment Theory. Its a different perspective on the relational realities I've explored over many medias and decades. I have met so may wonderfully articulate, generous and very smart people through -empyre- over the years - too many of you to name - who stimulated my intellect and enriched my emotional landscape. I'd like to specially shout out to the dedicated moderator team I worked with for the longest period - Christina McPhee, Michael Arnold Mages and Jim Andrews.- u rocked! Congratulations to todays' moderators for keeping pushing new boundaries, and too everyone who has contributed in moderation, administration, technically and in discussion to make -empyre- the sophisticated community it is today. long live -empyre- Melinda Rackham ***** -empyre- :: soft skinned space -empyre- mailing list sprang into being in January 2002, hosted on the College of Fine Arts server at UNSW. It is an online forum which regularly invites guest artists, theorists, curators, producers or administrators from the Australia/Pacific and International media arts field to discuss their projects, publications, pet theories and productions. It intends to focus on media art issues in depth, without necessarily being academically referenced, or concerned with delineating areas of practice into interactive, or digital, 2 or 3D, net or rom, or PDA, or flash, or image or text. The list has a specific format for a number of reasons. Over the years I had been getting frustrated with the low ratio of signal to noise on other lists, and seeing lists like Recode and Syndicate be torn apart by the constant revision of the social structure of the list - i.e. discussions over what was appropriate in mailing list etiquette in terms of announcements and postings. How to deal with those who were perceived to break these codes of behaviour overtook actually talking about media arts topics and the lists died. I also wanted a discussion space which would explore topics specific to 3d spaces on the web, as I had been working in that area of practice for a few years and discovered a vibrant global community discussing the technical issues associated with web3d, but no avenues for the more aesthetic or theoretical discussions of networked dimensional environments. And most importantly, I saw other lists where the culture of the Internet and impacts of technology were being discussed by writers and academics, but not by artists who were making work in the field. –empyre– aims to fill those gaps. How it works is that each invited guest speaker has the list for period of time to discuss different aspects of their new media practice, or their books or their sites, or performances, or curated shows. After a few format changes… (our first guest, theorist and artist Ollivier Dyens, held the forum space for almost 6 weeks discussing his book and website Metal and Flesh,) list guests are generally now in two-week slots. Topics range from artist/curator Patrick Lichty speaking on PDA, wearable, and hand-held art; to producer Antoanetta Ivanova discussing digital copyright and artist rights online. Offline –empyre- would equate to a casual lecture series, or a resident workshop program. The list provides the space and the audience, the guest decides the topic, and is responsible for posting. Lately I have been organising guests with complimentary interests for each month, eg Adrian Miles and Jill Walker from RMIT, Melbourne and University of Bergen, Norway discussed blogs and video blogs; and Curators/writers Valérie Lamontagne and Sylvie Parent, both from Montréal discussed aspects of gallery and online curation, web history and factors relating to the visibility of web.art. The list aims to have diversity in its scheduled topics, and to be flexible enough to adapt to current events. In March this year, while the Web3d Art show was physically installed at the ICA London, –empyre- simultaneously provided an online forum, where a large number of the artists from the show, including John Klima Jaka Zeleznikar and Tamiko Theil discussed the issues in their work. Similarly, E-lounge the online follow-up from an Atlantic rim conference held in east coast Canada is coming up in October, covering issues like net.art and wireless networks. Other forthcoming guests and topics include a discussion on projected identity and public /private web spaces with code poet Mez; the Japanese mathematically based Method art movement with Hideki Nakazawa ; Cyber feminisms with Julianne Pierce; Constructing Virtuality and Avatar Manifestos with Gregory Little and Joseph Nechvatal; and Artificial Life with theorist Mitchell Whitelaw. When I launched –empyre- as an experiment, I thought it would be a cosy intimate group of around 50 people, however it attracted diverse subscribers. The numbers go up and down as people try it out to see if they like it, some people who’ve been there a while leave, others join for a specific guest or topic. Currently it’s around 370 subscribers, with around 40% from the Australia/Pacific region, the rest from North America and Europe with a splattering from Eastern Europe , South America and Asia. One of my future goals for the list is to expand the subscribership in Asian regions. It is a low to moderate traffic list with an average of 30 messages a week. Regularly about 15% of subscribers post - there are a few who have something to contribute to the discussion on every topic, as well as constantly changing posters dependent on the guest and topic. The rest of –empyre- are silently lurking… which is an interesting form of participation. Recently I overheard someone on the list who had never posted, discussing a list topic in an offline context, and I realised that a mailing list’s influence is far beyond what happens publicly online, it reverberates - becomes interactive in the wider community. People contribute by reading, nothing is passive. A lot of people also make interesting observations either to myself or to the current guest instead of the whole list, as it does take time to become involved with an online discussion. To quote Sean Cubitt –empyre-‘s August guest - “One thing I wanted to murmur about here is time: the proliferation of different times. There's the time of sending, the time of reading and the time of replying on a list.” List etiquette issues of course are always present… from its inception I have had strong guidelines as to what are appropriate postings, for example -empyre- is not a chat space, nor an announcement or self-promotion list, nor online performance space. It’s for topic discussion only, and I state up front that I will unsubscribe anyone who consistently disregards these guidelines without entering into debate. And I’ve had to remove or ask a few people to unsubscribe already. So it is quiet strict in that sense, however if people don’t like those guidelines there are many other lists available. Initially I thought –empyre- would run for a year and then close, as it takes time and energy to maintain a list, however because it works well and the format has built a momentum, it will continue. Christina McPhee, a US West Coast media artist, and Adrian Miles from RMIT, Melbourne are joining me as co-moderators and co- administrators, scheduling next years guests and topics. We are always looking for others interested in maintaining this locally based spunky online community. Melinda Rackham September 2002 melinda at subtle.net ****** 27.1 [-empyre-] … once upon a time ... Renate Ferro <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> Sun Jun 2 14:23:35 EST 2013 Awesome....any other contact info etc???? If not either you can post directly after I introduce the month or I can do it for you. Thanks ever so much. Renate 28.0 <nettime> Re: the condition of net.time brian carroll nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:18:37 +0000 # writing is an impossibility. writing universally. communicating # has limits. sound, image, text. all have ways of seeing, ways # of perceiving. there is no unbiased author, no unbiased text. # language changes, time changes. meaning changes. ways of seeing # and saying and doing, all change. thus the nettime signature file: # a question arises, as a subscriber/participant in this networked # space-time. it centers around nettime's definition as a list, and # its mission/purpose, and the context(s) in which it arose... # in this last footer, a few statments about nettime's identity are # made, which are as follows: nettime1 = net criticism + collaborative text filtering + cultural politics of the nets nettime2 = moderated mailing list # from a subscribers perspective, there seems to be a conflict within # this constitution of the list: # # this is to say that the issue of moderation does not cleanly fit # together with criticism + collaborative filtering + cultural politics nettime1 =/= nettime2 # first, this is a condition or a situation of mailing lists, not of # nettime alone, in my experience. but it is also something that needs # to be interrogated and investigated to see if there are any other # alternatives for the goals. yet i am left wondering... does nettime1 = nettime_now? # first, addressing the thorny issues surrounding nettime2 as a # moderated mailing list. apparently this has been a constant issue # and i imagine something of a daily issue for those moderating, if # indeed there is a lot, some, or no moderation going on. it is a # spectre that seems to haunt the idea of open-communications about # politics, and criticism, in that, there being no real universal # meaning/understanding/language, the decision can never be uniform. # i.e., nettime means something different for every participant... IF there is no uniform language (universal understanding/meaning) THEN can there be a uniform, and thus, fair moderation mechanism? # nettime exists, embedded in language. while ideas are exchanged, # they are done so in and of language. yet, in my eyes, nettime # would probably not delve into language_as_language as it might # seem off-topic. and it might well be, in some contexts, but not # in others. but moderators may not see it the same way. so what # way are we all seeing the texts we input and get as output..? IF uniform language does not exist and moderation does exist THEN a basic understanding of what makes nettime a common forum for imperfect language could be established which constitutes a shared, although imperfect understanding of `what is nettime'. = nettime? # to check the above statement, we need to parse the signature # file through the code: does nettime1 = nettime? (net criticism + collaborative text filtering + cultural politics of the nets) = (common forum + imperfect language + understanding)? # it is a muddled question, the variables for variable_nettime? would # need to be determined, but in my personal experience, i do not see # these two being equal, given the following parse... criticism + filtering + politics + culture =/= nettime? # this is not because of an arrogant view that nettime must serve # an individual's view of nettime. but that the keywords, as keywords, # criticism, filtering, politics, culture, are all multidimensional # and cross-culturally, dissimilar, if only because of language itself. question1 = "is there more to understand in the language of nettime than in the texts of nettime?" IF question1 = True THEN nettime exists as language filter, processing meaning IF question1 = False THEN nettime exists as a textual filter, processing interpretation based on specific language (texts in English, Dutch, Spanish, etc.) # this brings up another question that is central to the nettime.sig... question2 = "can moderation of nettime1 ever be separated from its political dimensions?" # one could say: IF question1 = False, THEN question1 = False, and # conclude that, because of 'textual' and not 'lingual' understanding, # that cultural politics are what skews nettime as a moderated forum, # in that texts are being filtered for interpretations, and not meaning. # this is not to say this is actually the case, but by leaving these # variables undefined, it could be perceived, and at times it could # be the case that meaning is overridden by pre-interpretation. but # equally, could there not be texts with almost no meaning that also # make it through moderation because of this very same paradoxical # phenomenon, so that: any nettime1 moderation = censorship, fascist moderators, et cetera. # if it is a truism that 'all politics is local', might it not also # be possible that all nettime moderation is inherently political? # thus, what are the chances that nettimers share the same politic # and that nettime represents such a unified front- nil, anyone? IF nettime is a unified entity AND it is inherently political, from moderation to contributors THEN when nettime is referred to as a group, such as 'the nettime crowd', does this presuppose a shared political view? IF SO what is this shared political view? # i myself believe there is no such view, and can be no such view # in terms of texts, culture, the internet, and collaboration on # these terms. not that politics is an end-use to aim for. this is # not because of having a better system, but because of the belief # in the fallibility of interpretation, logic, and language in the # act of communicating and thinking ideas, and reality itself. # what is our shared reality? what is 'our', or 'we', in terms # of nettime? or is there no common 'we', some level of shared # understanding and meaning... beyond the subjective/objective, # beyond the dichotomy, lies paradox. the EITHER-OR goes N-OR, # and BOTH-AND. things are much less clear, yet more realistic. # Therefore, what are the assumptions of... nettime? = shared understanding, shared meaning? # for example, the word 'intelligentsia' may for a certain majority # evoke one image, for another group another, or even more complexly, # many views, none of which is in any sense finalized, but it is # left-to-be-decided/interpreted, while others already have their # interpretations, thus, the universal meaning may be there in the # language of the idea, but not in the interpretation of the text. # this, not being an anomaly but ever-present and pervasive in the # discourse, of language as text, sound, image: interpreted. nettime = source code (language) that is already compiled (interpreted) # to talk/discuss (discourse) just about the compilations without # addressing the basic foundations in language is to make a huge # assumption that we pre-exist with some kind of shared meaning. # quicker, it would be, to recognize there is no shared meaning # and to go about finding a base knowledge from which to speak, # share, act on common goals, but instead, discourse dis-courses... # there is a thing i believe could be said to be 'the condition of # nettime' in that, online, everyone is here, relating, and trying # to find some commonality from which to work. for some it is much # easier because of geography and the shared interests, such as # `English football clubs and community initiatives to buy them out # as a way of making action in the world' involved. the tangibilty # of action is localized. nettime is globalized. a condition, in # that net.time could be considered networked.time+space, given # the physics of time and its entwined relationship with space. question3 = does networked.space-time define only online space-time, or does it include the networking of space and time, and if so, via what mediums. is nettime any less about the telephone or radio than about the networked computer? # here's the overall statement running through my head, causing me # constant crashes when trying to interpret nettime compilations... "the condition of nettime?" = reverse-engineering, through the interpreted text, a shared meaning of language, and thus the universe. # thus, shared ideas are embedded in texts, and their interpretations # and not in ideas and their meaning. or so it is posited... case in # point... # one could attempt to find a universal understanding/meaning for # JODI's work online. this could be done cross-culturally, through # texts, using specific languages, but with similar interpretations. # yet the difference in understanding will always, inherently be # there, in the text, as it is a lossy medium. there is always # another perspective, another view. what is common about JODIs # work? i would contend that the universality of JODIs work is # not likely to be found in any art history book, or in any attempt # to understand the works without understanding their contexts. # thus, the statement: { a universal understanding of JODIs work is more likely to come from understanding electrons, molecules, and a handful of dirt, than in any world history of art, because of the imperfection of interpreted language. how can one view JODIs work without understanding the lineage for the medium in which such works, and their logics, are based? While coding may in some sense be more uniform than other languages, in its usage as text, it still needs to be compiled, and interpreted by the end- user/perceiver. and belief plays a role. what if there is no overriding shared/common belief? does this make a universal textual analysis/discourse of the work infeasible? } # a speculative statement based on the above: { meaning is pre-supposed but does not actually pre-exist } we make meaning. who is we? if nettime makes meaning, who is nettime? is there any shared meaning on nettime? if so, is nettime's shared meaning closer to dirt or to net.art? do nettimers' universally share their interpretations of language more with the intersubjective facts (truths) of electrons or JODIs art-works/texts? # these are not meant to be derogatory statements to net.art, # whatever that is understood as being. as interpretation is # unclear, universally, the statement could mean multiple # things, such is the nature of the distributed mailing list. # thus, when words like ideology and institutions and keywords # being defined by others in different ways than another's meaning, # all are examples of the fissure between the interpretation of # language and its meaning. to focus on interpretation, while also # assuming shared meaning, is the Achilles heel of nettime. but even # this statement is particular. if there is no shared identity, how # can there be a shared meaning? if there is no shared meaning, how # can there be any shared interpretation of the text, that is not # itself always embattled with mis-reading as an altruistic goal # in the Production of Discourse as Discourse, an end-in-itself? # it might be interesting to conduct a nettime census, but then # again, it might not. could be done using a free cgi-poll, and # the questions could be made up in advance. but then again, it # would define nettime as a group, as would the questions, which # could also be negative, in terms of market research and its use # in playing to the crowd. it is just this overwhelming sense of # assumption, not nettime-specific, but nettime-aware that people # on nettime are more likely than others to take up and find a # way onward, to do the things that many have gotten online in # the first place for, to organize, to make a difference by # working together with others on shared ideas and goals... nettime? = what are these shared goals and ideas? # in my opinion: nettime? =/= cultural politics, text filtering, net criticism # as these are all based on the interpretation of texts, and not # their meaning as language, and with the identities of the people # whom are ciphering and deciphering this meaning. networked.space-time = nettime? 29.0 nettime: het stuk j bosma nettime-l@desk.nl Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:08:29 +0100 stuk [het]= *(aandeel)share, security *(staaltje)een stout stukje: a bold feat*(aantrekkelijk persoon) male: hunk, stud. female: piece*(geschrift) document, article. by Paulien van Mourik Broekman and Josephine Bosma Neither of us were there when Nettime was born, but we think we are close enough to the source to know its radiation, its personality almost. Nettime can nearly be treated as a character. Its loose form and the firm but loving embrace of its participants give it a different feel then do its descendants or its copycats. However, there is still something uncomfortable about it, which we will try to get as close as possible to in the following text. What is most striking about Nettime is its wish for close personal contact. Nettime-meetings have been organised under the banner of conferences like Next5Minutes or Metaforum, and a big one which truly shows Nettime's sweet face is the meeting planned for May 97 which will be held in three different cities in former Yugoslavia: Ljubljana, Zagreb and a searesort. Nettime seems to be an island of humanity in the mediated world of the net and its periphery. Anybody can send anything at anytime to its open list. Though, for a discussion mailing list, this is in itself not unusual, combined with the very human and personal treatment of its members, it means that Nettime could be a fertile breeding ground for new writing talents, a free space to experiment with styles and thoughts for artists or theorists or what is most interesting: it could be a place for non-writers in the extreme sense of the word to vent their opinions on highly philosofical matters, a place where professional intellectuals and illiterate mediaworkers communicate. And this is where something seems to go wrong. Nettime has a lot of members. The issues that pass the revue titillate many minds . Yet only a very small part of its members 'open fire', even when the battle is practically in their own backyard. We have heard someone say he is afraid to write. Why is that? Speaking in public is not easy, most of us know that, with the exception of the natural performers. But is that the only problem? From many sides the same remarks about Nettime are heard over and over again. The texts, the announcements and the world that seems to be hidden behind them are found extremely interesting, but there is this enormous treshhold fear to react. And it seems to have something to do with these same good texts. At conferences the way an idea is communicated is a mixture of that of the objective, learned scholar/professional and that of the masterspeaker, the politician, the salesman. Theories are presented and discussions are initiated in the oldfashioned manner of the college, where knowledge was a clearly shaped object of power, with a beginning and an end and, perhaps, guards flanking its sides. Even the audience seems to submit to these rules of polite respect for the erect manner of speaking that also dominates the universities and political meetings. The way texts and knowledge is spread and treated through new media might not just offer new possibilities, but it might be a revolution which even academies will have to deal with. New media are not just effecting old media like books, tv or radio. It also effects institutions. Their heritage needs to be dealt with and transformed. It is not so that we mean to say that what comes out of this heritage, like styles of writing and thinking, is wrong or needs to be dumped. It just feels a bit uncomfortable. Fortunately Nettime does not pay its contributors for their efforts. This saves us from endless plowing through the long, highly abstract theoretical pieces of the professional macho theorists who like their masturbative seeds to choke the throats of the doubting student, the searching poet or the wacko artist. Many writers still have these sharp, fast pens though, which they learned to hold so well during their professional careers. And only the wackos seem to have the (unconscious?) guts to reply to them. What happens instead of the shared tought trains often is the safer but less effective private mail exchanges, the whispering at the backdoor, which takes the sting out of the debate. The only way to fight this syndrome without losing the credibility or impact of net.criticism is probably to work with an awareness of how textual critical authority, maybe invisible to its producer, can simultaneously encourage and suppress the introduction of new voices/communications. The metaphor of the academy can also be used in a more positive way though, as - though invisible due to the same characteristics that make the net such fertile ground for gender switching etc. - the range of ages, professional and personal experiences of those who subscribe to Nettime is no doubt vast. The email communicated thinking, feeling and being that make up Nettime's shared persona touches on the very slippery areas where practice, personal experience and theory (for want of a better word) intersect. In fact, don't they in most social interactions? Distinctions made here between these categories are, by necessity, crude. Given that this is what we have to play with, the fact remains that some postings will seem more relevant to some than others, for reasons that go beyond simple qualitative criteria. Some postings that may seem like so much "noise" to 'seniors' concerned with their own particular patch of high-theoretical discussion, may link in more directly with the lives and lifestyles of other subscribers. Yet conversely, those self-same subscribers (and we say this from experience) learn much from even the shortest exchange on topics they may not be intimately familiar with. A more personal inflection on otherwise theoretical postings manages to communicate the really valuable experience gleaned from working in an area over a long period of time. The issue of noise does clearly connect with Alexei Shulgin's plea for avoiding professionalism in favor of freedom for development and experimentation, which he seems to have meant for the art-side of Nettime mostly. This is applicable to the whole of Nettime's working field though. The tempting and sometimes threatening idea of separating the art-hemisphere from supposedly more practical workingfields seems completely out of place in the context of the experimentation workers in new media are inevitably obliged to engage in. Of course this broadening of discussion can also slide into a situation where... 'plus ca change': the 'lurkers' feel privileged to listen to the masterspeakers, not just in the lecture hall as before, but in the newly-opened private spaces of the gents' loo and the corner of the professors' refectory. It is a pity that some interesting professional writers whom we know must have eye and heart for helping to find a solution to this problem are too busy being professional elsewhere. Of course, not everyone has the tireless energy of the few one-man broadcasting houses that push Nettime forward (thanks) so perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if some others circulating in the technoculture circuit would every now and then step down from their pedestal and be among the crowds again, not just at conferences, that seem to be like holiday camps to them and where of course personal exchanges of ideas and inspiration are limited to small groups of people only. We have to say that eventhough these mechanisms that we have described above are in our opinion the major reason why the Nettime platform does not work to its fullest possibilities, there have also been a few little incidents on Nettime that have created the impression that one has to be careful with postings. A few times people have been thrown of the list for reasons that were not always clear to everybody, but seemed to have to do with certain not clearly visible *rules*. Not everybody has the chance to ask the moderators face to face what is going on and to discuss it. For this reason it seems necessary that after such an incident, and hopefully we will not have too many, a warm and inspiring invitation to doubters and searchers is spread, which could maybe also function as a kind of basic, userfriendly Nettime manifesto. Nettime is a social entity; above all else its energy comes from its community-oriented nature. The above is not meant as a dead-end complaint. It is more a response to a slightly troubling and seemingly contradictory tendency within the discussions of nettime that have discouraged certain interesting subscribers to participate. In the long run this may create problems, nobody likes being an unintentional lurker. The network of subscribers is a valuable one for all of us, and loosing good but in the world of theorywriting inexperienced people due to inaccessability would be a damn shame. If we are to avoid building with institutionalised male dominated structures of theoretical discourse that existed within the academy of old, which profitted from specialisms, narrowing the gaze and heading for one clear goal, and we reflect now, in practice, the diversity of this list, the threads of this tendency might need to be unpicked and rewoven. Paulien= editor of Mute mute {AT} easynet.co.uk/ W: www.metamute.co.uk London Josephine = radio-maker Radio Patapoe 97.2FM ptp {AT} desk.nl Amsterdam * -- * distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission * <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, * collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets * more info: majordomo {AT} is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body * URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner {AT} is.in-berlin.de