gauthiier/Full_digest_rescheduled
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity
Full_digest_rescheduled/xml/9.List_talking_to_List.xml
gauthiier afc71795d1 index(es)
2020-01-21 11:38:31 +01:00

10786 lines
444 KiB
XML
Raw Blame History

<chapter>
<title>List talking to List</title>
<desc>...</desc>
<mails>
<mail>
<nbr>0.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; moderation rotation</subject>
<from>nettime's_rotating_moderators</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:29:39 -0500</date>
<content>
/
[5]
/
\
&#176;&#176;&#176;&#176;&#176;&#176; [3]
&#176;&#176; &#176;&#176; \
&#176;&#176; -[2]- &#176;&#176;
&#176; &#176;
&#176; &#176;
&#176; -[1]- &#176;
&#176; &#176;
| &#176;&#176; &#176;&#176;
[?] &#176;&#176; &#176;&#176;
| &#176;&#176;&#176;&#176;&#176;&#176; /
[4]
/
&#176;
&#176;
&#176;
&#176; &#176; &#176; &#176;
\ &#176; &#176; &#176; &#176;
[?] &#176; &#176;X&#176; &#176;
\ &#176;X&#176; &#176; &#176;
&#176; &#176; &#176;X&#176;
&#176; &#176; &#176;
/* please press arrow keys to rotate moderators */
[1] Scot McPhee &lt;scot {AT} autonomous.org&gt;
[2] Sebastian Luetgert &lt;sebastian {AT} rolux.org&gt;
[3] Geert Lovink &lt;geert {AT} xs4all.nl&gt;
[4] Ted Byfield &lt;tbyfield {AT} panix.com&gt;
[5] Felix Stalder &lt;stalder {AT} fis.utoronto.ca&gt;
[?] 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 &lt;rolux&gt; 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."</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>1.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; The majordomo panoply of other nettimes</subject>
<from>Bruce Sterling</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:38:04 -0600</date>
<content>
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*&lt;nettime&gt; Koerner: Why American teens don't want the new cell phones geert
lovink
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; wireless commons digest [stalder, elloi] Brett Shand
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Religious Sect Announces First Cloned Baby Paul Brown
*&lt;nettime&gt; WiFiCo [weisman, elloi] nettime's_waterloo_monger
*&lt;nettime&gt; 2003 20th Anniversary of cutover from ncp/ARPANET to TCP/IP
Internet Ronda Hauben
*&lt;nettime&gt; Scatter(ed) Dynamics (text): audio.culture.theory tim jaeger
*&lt;nettime&gt; Colombia: Rebels Embrace New Technology Krystian Woznicki
*&lt;nettime&gt; From Korean Central News Agency of DPRK Alan Sondheim
*&lt;nettime&gt; M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws
inAntimissile System David Mandl
*&lt;nettime&gt; BytesForAll * 04012003 Frederick Noronha
*&lt;nettime&gt; Mystery Man Revealed in Microsoft Xbox Hack Contest Rachel Greene
*&lt;nettime&gt; The War of Time bc
*&lt;nettime&gt; FUCK HIP HOP: A Eulogy to Hip Hop Paul D. Miller
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; FUCK HIP HOP: A Eulogy to Hip Hop McKenzie Wark
*&lt;nettime&gt; Re: A Eulogy to Hip Hop Danny Butt
*&lt;nettime&gt; Vietnam: Cyber-dissident jailed for 12 years (rsf) geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; Events [9x] Announcer
*&lt;nettime&gt; unstable digest vol 28 Florian Cramer
*&lt;nettime&gt; WiFiCo2 digest [elloi, albert] nettime's_ruminant
*&lt;nettime&gt; Fwd: Bush II Never President, Historians Conclude Bruce Sterling
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip hop eulogy digest [myers, eduardo] nettime_preacha
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip hop eulogy digest ctd. [greene, miller] nettime
*&lt;nettime&gt; Tehelka crushed by the power elite Bruce Sterling
*&lt;nettime&gt; hop hip digest [fusco, williams, porculus, butt]
nettime_mixmaster_discourse
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip hop digest vol. 4 [sonar radar, eyescratch, mcgee] nettime
*&lt;nettime&gt; Zapatista speeches, January 1st 2003 + 20,000 Zapatistas "take"
San Cristobal,Jan 06 ricardo dominguez
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip hop digest vol. 5 [Guderian, Wark] nettime's digestion
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip hop digest vol. 6 [levesque, buhard] nettime
*&lt;nettime&gt; zapatate speech, right now porculus
*&lt;nettime&gt; the ABZ of the Copenhagen Free University matthew fuller
*&lt;nettime&gt; Jo &amp; Bruce: Community Radio in Afghanistan geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; Perry Anderson on the upcoming war Patrice Riemens
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Perry Anderson on the upcoming war Sawad
*&lt;nettime&gt; re: Bennu's piece Mendi Obadike
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; hip hop (in)digestion Are Flagan
*&lt;nettime&gt; Fw: //surveillance// Many tools of Big Brother are up and
running wade tillett
*&lt;nettime&gt; fwd: [IRR] US DTV: the battle is joined t byfield
*&lt;nettime&gt; sms(SMUT-system) use at WTO meeting - sydney dr.woooo
*&lt;nettime&gt; hip-hop digest dr.woooo
*&lt;nettime&gt; Bennu's piece &amp; hip-hop digest Paul D. Miller
*&lt;nettime&gt; Announcements [9x] Announcer
*&lt;nettime&gt; Artificial Perception as Reality Check twsherma
*&lt;nettime&gt; Critics Call Digital Activation Intrusive Jim Fleming
*&lt;nettime&gt; Events [11x] Announcer
*&lt;nettime&gt; the strange mess of paul's global hip-hop eulogy digest [butt,
townsend, mcgee] nettime's_gang
*&lt;nettime&gt; Battered Summit-Hoppers Cordially Overlooked Bruce Sterling
*&lt;nettime&gt; Woah, that's some culture-jam Bruce Sterling
*&lt;nettime&gt; Tactical Media &amp; Conflicting Diagrams (draft chapter) Alexander
Galloway
*&lt;nettime&gt; unstable digest vol 29 Florian Cramer
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Koerner: Why American teens don't want the new cellphones
Francis Hwang
*&lt;nettime&gt; ur-europanto redivivus: FT on clinton t byfield
*&lt;nettime&gt; the strange mess of paul's global hip-hop eulogy digest [butt,
townsend, mcgee] Paul D. Miller
*&lt;nettime&gt; Institutionalization of computer protocols (draft chapter)
Alexander Galloway
*&lt;nettime&gt; ITU To Propose Intl Cyberspace Treaty at WSIS (fwd) Heiko
Recktenwald
*&lt;nettime&gt; united we sms, divided we email digest [sgp, campion]
nettime's_big_thumb
*&lt;nettime&gt; EN) Updates for anti-WTO summit protest in Cancun dr.woooo
*&lt;nettime&gt; Publications [11x] Announcer
*&lt;nettime&gt; ominous rumbling about global net regulations t byfield
*&lt;nettime&gt; Oleg Kireev: Review of Hakim Bey-"Chaos and anarchy" in Russian
geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; Re: One Day Left m e t a
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Re: One Day Left Are Flagan
*&lt;nettime&gt; Re: One Day Left nettime's suv driver
*&lt;nettime&gt; FW: [CSL]: Jeremy Rifkin: Dazzled by the science David Wood
*&lt;nettime&gt; smsed we divide digest [recktenwald, easy listener]
nettime's_free_gateway
*&lt;nettime&gt; your friendly neighborhood assassin bc
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Institutionalization of computer protocols (draftchapter)
Philip Galanter
*&lt;nettime&gt; Interview with Slavoj Zizek (published in Haaretz) geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; Interview with Prema Murthy on 'Mythic Hybrid' Diane Ludin
*&lt;nettime&gt; Bat People on the Moon Still Seem Happy robert m. tynes
*&lt;nettime&gt; FW: Wildlife killed by conventional farming 'flourishes in GM
fields' wade tillett
*&lt;nettime&gt; blinded by science digest [galanter, geer]
nettime's_natura_naturans
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; blinded by science digest [galanter, geer] Louise Desrenards
*&lt;nettime&gt; Dotcom Observatory Special: AOL Watch geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; abroeck: Reseau/Resonance Andreas Broeckmann
*&lt;nettime&gt; Call for discussion! nettime's_spamkritik
*&lt;nettime&gt; I don't want to be alone in the 21st century Cornelia Sollfrank
*&lt;nettime&gt; froomkin: toward a critical theory of cyberspace t byfield
*&lt;nettime&gt; Could we be tracked by micro RFID tags? (fwd) Heiko Recktenwald
*&lt;nettime&gt; p.s.: don't forget to water the rhizome! digest [flagan,
guderian] nettime's_theoretical_potato
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; p.s.: don't forget to water the rhizome! digest [flagan,
guderian] porculus
*&lt;nettime&gt; frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley]
nettime's_infernal_machinist
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley] Daniel Young
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; frazzled bio art digest [thacker, crowley] Benjamin Geer
*&lt;nettime&gt; Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left m e t a
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left Don Cameron
*&lt;nettime&gt; 'No' to going it alone Ben Moretti
*&lt;nettime&gt; The Data-Life Theory Timothy Jaeger
*&lt;nettime&gt; unstable digest vol 30 Florian Cramer
*&lt;nettime&gt; brother, can you spare a rhizome digest [calin, bowman, hwang]
nettime's_tin_cup
*&lt;nettime&gt; warkogram [x2]: wark on lessig on supreme court McKenzie Wark
*&lt;nettime&gt; rhizome: burn rate t byfield
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; rhizome: burn rate Rachel Greene
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; rhizome: burn rate John Hopkins
*Re: FW: &lt;nettime&gt; rhizome: burn rate Mark Tribe
*&lt;nettime&gt; on rhizome kevin lahoda
*&lt;nettime&gt; phone indymedia patch - PIMP dr.woooo
*&lt;nettime&gt; revenge of the concept Keith Hart
*&lt;Possible follow-ups&gt;
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; revenge of the concept Brian Holmes
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; revenge of the concept Keith Hart
*&lt;nettime&gt; revenge of the concept McKenzie Wark
*&lt;nettime&gt; Dissent of WTC Architectural Fakery bc
*&lt;nettime&gt; CALL DOW WEDNESDAY Ray Thomas
*&lt;nettime&gt; Re: Fw: Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired Raul
Ferrera-Balanquet
*&lt;nettime&gt; FW: [CC] BREAKING NEWS! AOL PULLS PLUG ON DIGITALCITY- Without
Telling Any one Else Michael Gurstein
*&lt;nettime&gt; Bombing Error in Afghanistan Puts a Spotlight on Pilots' Pills
J Armitage
*Re: &lt;nettime&gt; rhizome: burn rate [3x] nettime's cultural investor
*&lt;nettime&gt; The Spam Jamboree geert lovink
*&lt;nettime&gt; r h i z o m e digest [alexander, hunsinger, brace]
nettime's_privatization_authority
*&lt;nettime&gt; r h i z o m e dgst [x5] nettime's_fickle_customer
*&lt;nettime&gt; War Economics 101 Are Flagan
*&lt;nettime&gt; (rooting|routing) rhizome digest [pope, tribe x2, broeckmann]
nettime's_gardener
*&lt;nettime&gt; Fwd: sms, pimp, etc dr.woooo
*&lt;nettime&gt; Why and how pollsters fake Chavez's "plummeting" popularity
Craig Brozefsky
*&lt;nettime&gt; The Zapatistas to Invade Spain! ricardo dominguez
*&lt;nettime&gt; who's rhizoming who digest [porculus, byfield, bowman] nettime'
s_fun_raiser
*&lt;nettime&gt; Strategic Principles bc
*&lt;nettime&gt; Publications [14x] Announcer
*&lt;nettime&gt; [Fwd: Davos WEF, Live Report] patrice
*&lt;nettime&gt; Fwd: Aesthetic Biology, Biological Art (Rifkin, bioart, science)
Eugene Thacker
*&lt;nettime&gt; Venezuelan Political Soap Opera or why are you so Liberal
Ricardo Bello
*&lt;nettime&gt; [meta-list] Re:[nettime] the neurosis of being earnest Lachlan
Brown
*&lt;nettime&gt; The Internet in Uganda Steve Cisler
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>2.0</nbr>
<subject>[spectre] re: Arns/Broeckmann</subject>
<from>Andreas Broeckmann</from>
<to>spectre@mikrolisten.de</to>
<date>Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:17:31 +0100</date>
<content>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 &lt;aart@EUnet.yu&gt;
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:
&gt; The case of Andrej Tisma, a
&gt; Yugoslav artist from multi-cultural Novi Sad and a defender of the
&gt; Milosevic regime throughout the late 90s, is a case in point: many
&gt; perceived his tirades against the West and against NATO as pure Serbian
&gt; propaganda which became unbearable at some point. Later, Tisma came back to
&gt; the list and continued his criticisms by posting links to anti-NATO web
&gt; pages he had created. For us, he was always an interesting sign post of
&gt; Serb nationalist ideology which it was good to be aware of. And it was good
&gt; that he showed that people can be artists 'like you and me', and be Serb
&gt; nationalists at the same time. The Syndicate could handle his presence
&gt; 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/</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.0</nbr>
<subject>The Syndicate - building a history</subject>
<from>bronac ferran</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:43:12 +0100</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.1</nbr>
<subject>The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Charlotte Frost</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 18:40:48 +0800</date>
<content>
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 &#173; Iran and Egypt are good recent examples &#173; 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 &#173; what collaboration its led to, and what
it was like to lose it &#173; 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 &#173; 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 </content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Armin Medosch</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 13:05:44 +0200</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>mez breeze</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:17:13 +1100</date>
<content>
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" &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;
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 &amp; function, &amp;
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp;
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 &amp; 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
.... . .??? .......
--</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.4</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>mez breeze</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:20:34 +1100</date>
<content>
2.
--
To: syndicate
From: "self re:ply.cator" &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;
Subject: Re: [syndicate] Re: Yes, but is it art?
At 01:40 PM 3/11/2002 -0800, m wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;why are there different mailing lists ?
&gt;&gt; &gt;n.deed, y r there? this _difference_ is telling........instead of
&gt;&gt; operating via this divergent take, i c the net.work as a _whole_,
&gt;&gt; operational in terms of infosharing &amp; dispersal........
&gt;&gt;
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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_ [&amp; 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
.... . .??? .......</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.5</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Simon Biggs</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:23:22 +0100</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.6</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Darko Fritz</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:14:24 +0200</date>
<content>
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. &#8212; My first recession : critical Internet culture in transition. &#8212; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.7</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Sally-Jane Norman</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:52:35 +0000</date>
<content>
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
&lt;nettime&gt; Rise and Decline of the Syndicate
To: nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net
Subject: &lt;nettime&gt; Rise and Decline of the Syndicate
From: Arns/Broeckmann &lt;inke {AT} snafu.de&gt;
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:52:49 +0100
Reply-To: Arns/Broeckmann &lt;inke {AT} snafu.de&gt;
Rise and Decline of the Syndicate: the End of an Imagined Community
Inke Arns &amp; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.8</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Honor Harger</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:34:46 +0100</date>
<content>
Hi Chrlotte, all,
Thanks for bringing up The Syndicate.
&gt;So far we've had little mention of the Syndicate list
&gt; &gt;And also more generally if anyone would venture an account of their
&gt;relationship with the Syndicate - what collaboration its led to, and what
&gt;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 &amp; Technology: http://honorharger.wordpress.com/</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.9</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Honor Harger</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:34:56 +0100</date>
<content>
Armin wrote:
&gt;As I have tried to point out in the past, without much success, the
&gt;material layer of networking also matters. Arts and humanities
&gt;scholars have a tendency to ascribe too much importance to what you
&gt;could call the semantic and symbolic layer. No email from Serbia
&gt;would have found its way to the syndicate list withoute having a
&gt;route to travel on. Those routes are provided by people who also
&gt;have cultural and political ideas, so that those human-technical
&gt;assemblages also have meaning, if you so want, something that should
&gt;also be considered, hwever, without tipping over into a one-sided
&gt;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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.10</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Armin Medosch</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:48:30 +0200</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.11</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Andreas Broeckmann</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:45:54 +0200</date>
<content>
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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.12</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Sean Cubitt</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:11:22 +0000</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.13</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history</subject>
<from>Charlotte Frost</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:54:30 +0800</date>
<content>
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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>3.14</nbr>
<subject>Re: The Syndicate - building a history of lists</subject>
<from>Charlotte Frost</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:40:34 +0800</date>
<content>
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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>4.0</nbr>
<subject>[Nettime-bold] Re: [syndicate] Rise and Decline of the Syndica</subject>
<from>Claudia Westermann</from>
<to>nettime-bold@nettime.org</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:27:33 +0100</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>5.0</nbr>
<subject>spam art and blogs</subject>
<from>Josephine Bosma</from>
<to>&lt;new-media-curating@jiscmail.ac.uk&gt;</to>
<date>Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:11:37 +0200</date>
<content>
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
*</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>brian carroll</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:33:35 -0500</date>
<content>
* 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/</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.1</nbr>
<subject>RE: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Nicholas Ruiz</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:08 -0400</date>
<content>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: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea
* is it possible that 'ideas' that are now institutionalized
&lt;...&gt;
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.2</nbr>
<subject>RE: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Felix Stalder</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:38:51 +0200</date>
<content>
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 &lt;nevejan {AT} xs4all.nl&gt;:
&gt; Critiqing others for having done 'stuff', aging and moving on in
&gt; life, I find rather uninteresting. I get interested when I hear what
&gt; 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 &lt;abroeck {AT} transmediale.de&gt;:
&gt; finally, if you are unhappy with the list, be aware that 'the list',
&gt; i.e. nettime, is what gets posted. of course, moderation plays a
&gt; role in this. but the greater role is played by the things that get
&gt; written and sent, or not. if certain discussions are not happening,
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>roberta buiani</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:53:30 +0200</date>
<content>On 9-Jun-06, at 10:38 AM, Felix Stalder wrote:
&gt;
&gt; I agree, on many levels, nettime works quite well, so there is not an
&gt; urgent need to change something. But, this does not mean it cannot be
&gt; improved. Sure it can. But to do that, we need concrete ideas, what
&gt; would you, personally, individually, like to see in nettime, and how
&gt; do you put up the resources to do it? The easiest thing is to do it
&gt; yourself. Silvan Zurbueck did that when he wanted an rss feed for
&gt; nettime, he took the feed, pumped into a blog, and now there is an rss
&gt; feed. [1] Tobias van Veen did that when he wanted to hold a nettime
&gt; meeting in NA, and now we had it. Great. They had an idea, they
&gt; figured out a way of doing it (by doing it themselves and roping in
&gt; others to contribute). This is how things work, not by telling others
&gt; what they should or should not do. The same goes for the various
&gt; nettime lists in other languages. People came up with the idea of
&gt; doing something, and they are doing it. Most of the people on this
&gt; list are not aware of that, because these lists are in languages few
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.4</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Heiko Recktenwald</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:17:24 +0200</date>
<content>Well,
Felix Stalder wrote:
&gt;
&gt; [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-&gt;getBlogPostData('1462', '/blog/', false)
#1 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/plugins/blog.php(340): bx_plugins_blog-&gt;getBlogPosts(Object(MDB2_BufferedResult_mysql), '/blog/', false)
#2 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/collection.php(149): bx_plugins_blog-&gt;getContentById('/blog/', 'index')
#3 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/collection.php(115): bx_collection-&gt;getContentByPluginMap(Array)
#4 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/bx/popoon/components/generators/bxcms.php(77): bx_collection-&gt;getContentByRequest('index', 'html')
#5 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/tmp/_var_www_freeflux_cms1.4_sitemap_sitemap.xml(1335): popoon_components_generators_bxcms-&gt;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-&gt;runSitemap('./tmp/_var_www_...')
#8 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/popoon.php(182): popoon_sitemap-&gt;__construct('/var/www/freefl...', 'index.html', Object(bx_config))
#9 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/inc/popoon/popoon.php(160): popoon-&gt;run('/var/www/freefl...', 'index.html', Object(bx_config))
#10 [BX_PROJECT_DIR]/index.php(31): popoon-&gt;__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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.5</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Newmedia</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:41:57 EDT</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.6</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>John Young</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:32:56 -0700</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.7</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Geert Lovink</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:40:01 +0200</date>
<content>Felix Stalder writes:
On 9 Jun 2006, at 10:38 AM, Felix Stalder wrote:
&gt; I agree, on many levels, nettime works quite well, so there is not an
&gt; urgent need to change something. But, this does not mean it cannot be
&gt; improved. Sure it can. But to do that, we need concrete ideas, what
&gt; would you, personally, individually, like to see in nettime, and how
&gt; do you put up the resources to do it? The easiest thing is to do it
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.8</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>A. G-C</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:57:13 +0200</date>
<content>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:
" &lt;nettime&gt; 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.
&lt;nettime&gt; is slightly moderated.
history:
the formation of the nettime group goes back to spring 1995.
A first meeting called &lt;nettime&gt; 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). "
===&gt; 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.
&gt;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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.9</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>David Garcia</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:39:17 +0200</date>
<content>
On Jun 11, 2006, at 5:57 PM, A. G-C wrote:
&gt; From this point of view, I think that Geert's provocation on closing
&gt; the list to have it reborning from this new time, it is really
&gt; interesting as logical activist attitude happening in real time of
&gt; the mails against misunderstanding and mortification...
&gt; Re borning situation of creating among the others is not a death,
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.10</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Michael Benson</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:10 +0200</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.11</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>A. G-C</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:12:41 +0200</date>
<content>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.
&gt;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 H&#246;lderlin 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 p&#233;riph&#233;rie"
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:)</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.12</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>John Young</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:29:44 -0700</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.13</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>brian carroll</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:56:18 -0500</date>
<content> 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/</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.14</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; RE: nettime as idea</subject>
<from>J Armitage</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:51:25 +0100</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.15</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; RE: nettime as idea</subject>
<from>David Garcia</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:23:47 +0200</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.16</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; RE: nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Wayne Myers</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:30:19 +0100</date>
<content>On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:51:25 +0100
J Armitage &lt;j.armitage {AT} unn.ac.uk&gt; wrote:
&gt; I think I can say that I have been on nettime for as long as I can remember
&gt; 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.
&gt; I can't be the only lurker around here who is BORED TO DEATH with the
&gt; 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...
&gt; If there is one way to kill nettime it is keep posting this self-absorbed
&gt; prattle for weeks on end.
Oh come on, John. Nettime died years ago. Netcraft confirms it...
Cheers,
Wayne</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>6.17</nbr>
<subject>AW: &lt;nettime&gt; RE: nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Heiko Hansen</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:19:11 +0200</date>
<content>Garcia:
&gt;But I do not think that these discussions are disconnected to issues of more
&gt;substance. How we treat each other in our communities of discourse is an
&gt;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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>7.0</nbr>
<subject>mini CPR, Was Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime as idea</subject>
<from>Gita Hashemi</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:28:33 -0400</date>
<content>At 10:39 AM +0200 6/12/06, David Garcia wrote:
&gt;I would argue that any movement for radical change should be carried
&gt;out in close collaboration with the moderators and should take a very
&gt;different approach and tone from some of the peremptory notifications
&gt;we have seen on this thread. And above all they should seek to
&gt;work imaginatively with the fact that nettime has found a powerful
&gt;way of addressing our most pressing issue; sustainability without
&gt;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: &lt;nettime&gt;
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: &lt;nettime&gt; 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: &lt;nettime&gt; 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
--
-&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt; -&gt;
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]
&lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;- &lt;-</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>nettime mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 07:35:14 +0200</date>
<content>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:
&lt;http://nettime.org/info.html&gt;.
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>chris christiaansz ungerer</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST)</date>
<content>
L.S.
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Armin Medosch</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:34:36 +0200</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Keith Hart</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:39 +0200</date>
<content> 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 &lt;[1]nettime {AT} kein.org&gt;
wrote:
Dear Nettimers, present and past --
&lt;...&gt;
--
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/</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.4</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>John Young</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:13:15 -0400</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.5</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Eric Miller</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:24:23 -0700</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.6</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Alex Foti</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:01:13 +0200</date>
<content>
that's so sad. will the archives still be visible at the same url?
i'll miss it dearly
lx</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.7</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>lincoln dahlberg</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:37:05 +0000 (UTC)</date>
<content>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.&#194;
e.g.
&gt;&#194; "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,</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.8</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Douglass Carmichael</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:45:48 -0700</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.9</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Graham St John</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:23:21 +1100</date>
<content>
Yes, ..... finally and what a relief ............ FACETIME
LIKE
On 1/04/2015 4:35 pm, nettime mod squad wrote:
&gt; Personally, we -- Ted Byfield and Felix Stalder -- would like to say
&gt; that it's been a pleasure and an honor to moderate the list for the
&gt; last seventeen-odd years. It's been a part of our lives, and we'll
&gt; miss it very much.
&gt;
&gt; -- the mod squad</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.10</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Claire Pentecost</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:26:36 -0500</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.11</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Ana Viseu</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:24:06 +0100</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.12</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Alex Foti</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 12:05:24 +0200</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.13</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Sean Cubitt</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:40:49 +0000</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.14</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Tapas Ray</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:20:44 +0530</date>
<content>
Heartfelt thanks toTed Byfield and Felix Stalder.
Tapas</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.15</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Rachel O' Dwyer</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 14:46:01 +0100</date>
<content>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 &lt;alex.foti {AT} gmail.com&gt; wrote:
&gt; shit, and i thought i was astute because i had fooled my 13-year old
&gt; daughter into believing they had captured somebody from isis in the
&gt; neighborhood.. you got me really sad in fact. is it true or not? fuck
&gt; i agree with the guy (yes always guys..) who said that it's the only
&gt; place you get cool, orginal shit on whatever the whole time. i mean
&gt; let's not commit suicide, the world is already hard as it is to brave
&gt; it without nettime!
&gt;
&gt; april's fool born in april
&lt;...&gt;
--
openhere.data.ie
#openhere
+353 (1) 896 8443
+353 (85) 7023779</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.16</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>David Garica</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:07:09 +0100</date>
<content>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 &amp; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.17</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Lunenfeld, Peter B.</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:59:35 +0000</date>
<content>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 &amp; Vice Chair
UCLA Design Media Arts
http://www.peterlunenfeld.com
http://dma.ucla.edu</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.18</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Juergen Fenn</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:17:24 +0200</date>
<content>
2015-04-02 20:59 GMT+02:00 John Hopkins &lt;jhopkins {AT} neoscenes.net&gt;:
&gt; nothing is forever, but I ain't gonna unsub now ... gotta go back
&gt; 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,
J&#195;rgen.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.19</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>{ brad brace }</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:25:31 -0700 (PDT)</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.20</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Lennaart van Oldenborgh</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:10:39 +0100</date>
<content>
Dear mod squad
&gt; 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.
&gt; 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.
&gt; And there's no images, no video, no memes, no numbers,
&gt; stats or ranks, no friends or followers -- in short, there's not much
&gt; to like about it.
hahahaha! like it
lennaart
Lennaart van Oldenborgh
lennaart {AT} hofilms.co.uk</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.21</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Felix Stalder</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 03 Apr 2015 00:09:48 +0200</date>
<content>On 2015-04-02 12:05, Alex Foti wrote:
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.22</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Aliette GC</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 3 Apr 2015 02:02:23 +0200</date>
<content> 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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.23</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Nick</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:09:16 +0100</date>
<content>Quoth David Garica:
&gt; One other thought though there is much talk of 'sharing' nettime
&gt; writers used to share (and risk) far more. I may be mistaken but as the
&gt; community (dangerous word) and its discourse has developed it has also
&gt; professionalised and not always in a good way. Where once writers would
&gt; have rehearsed their ideas here in rough form I suspect that the
&gt; pressures around academic/publishing commodification creates a greater a
&gt; reluctance expose the ideas before publication. Could this be why it
&gt; feels a less risky, energetic and generous space or am I (as usual)
&gt; 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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.24</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Eric Kluitenberg</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:46:36 +0200</date>
<content> 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 &lt;nettime {AT} kein.org&gt;
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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.25</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Colin Hodson</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:15:55 +0000</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.26</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Thomas Gramstad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 4 Apr 2015 21:53:21 +0200 (CEST)</date>
<content>
+1
Thomas Gramstad</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.27</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Kath O'Donnell</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:26:09 +1000</date>
<content>thanks from me too. long time lurker &amp; reader.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.29</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>nativebuddha</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 5 Apr 2015 22:24:24 -0400</date>
<content> is this an accelerationist experiment with nettime? making it see
its own futurity and warping it up to deathspeed?&#194;
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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.30</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>czegledy</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:20:19 -0400</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.31</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Keith Sanborn</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:48:38 -0400</date>
<content>Thanks for this explanation. Still, feel the love, Ted and Felix, before we move on.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.32</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Molly Hankwitz</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:45:39 -0700</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.33</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Kruno Jost</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:28:07 +0200</date>
<content>
&gt; People who just (or mostly) read on-line do not deserve the creepy
&gt; 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, Vara&#382;din, Hrvatska
www.uke.hr</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.34</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Kevin Flanagan</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:51:19 +0200</date>
<content> 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 &#194;
On 6 April 2015 at 22:28, Kruno Jost &lt;[1]udrugauke {AT} gmail.com&gt; wrote:
&gt; People who just (or mostly) read on-line do not deserve the creepy
&gt; 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.
&lt;...&gt;
--
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.35</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>dan</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:44:41 -0400</date>
<content>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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.36</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>Michael H. Goldhaber</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Tue, 7 Apr 2015 22:24:04 -0700</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>8.37</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>JNM</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:27:51 +0100</date>
<content>
+1
JN</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>9.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettimee - let's change th</subject>
<from>adsl487504 {AT} telfort.nl</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>4 Apr 2015 11:24:26 +0200</date>
<content> 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 &#226;&#166;
The Bucharest meeting, which has been presented here in the initial
posting as a symptom of nettime&#226;s 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 Ceausescu&#226;s 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 &lt;colinhodson {AT} gmail.com&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>9.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettimee - let's change th</subject>
<from>in</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:43:29 -0400</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>10.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettimee [2x]</subject>
<from>Newmedia</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:41:49 +0200</date>
<content>----- Forwarded message from Newmedia {AT} aol.com -----
From: Newmedia {AT} aol.com
Subject: Re: &lt;nettime&gt; 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: &lt;nettime&gt; net.critique in autumn
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:05:06 -0400
To: bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com, nettime-l {AT} kein.org
Brian:
&gt; I think we have a lot of capacity to explore the new
&gt; directions that cybernetic society is going to take
&gt; 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 &lt;g&gt;) . . .
Mark Stahlman
Jersey City Heights
----- End forwarded message -----</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>10.28</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>David Garica</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:52:24 +0100</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>11.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; ***SPAM*** Re: nottime: the end of nettime</subject>
<from>morlockelloi</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:46:07 -0700</date>
<content>This alone is a major success.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>12.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nottime: the end of nettimee: 12-lis</subject>
<from>{ brad brace }</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 1 Apr 2015 19:39:09 -0700 (PDT)</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>nettime's mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:24:30 +0100</date>
<content>Eric Kluitenberg and David Garcia asked us to draft an entry/essay
on &lt;nettime&gt; 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: &lt;nettime&gt; at 20 years and counting
Ted Byfield &amp; Felix Stalder
This is an insider account. Both of us have been deeply involved in
the &lt;nettime&gt; 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:
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; a simple piece of software, running on a server,
which manages a subscriber list and distributes email to them.
Moreover, &lt;nettime&gt; 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, &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; arcane but efficient &#226; 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" &#226; for example, discouraging
"bare" URLs and encouraging people to send complete texts, which over
time ensured that, unlike most mailing-list archives, &lt;nettime&gt;'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 &#226; 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 (Z&#195;rich). 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 &#226; in light of periodic ruptures in funding patterns
that led to so many failed cultural organizations &#226; many compelling
reasons not to. As an organization, then, &lt;nettime&gt; is made up of
deep, overlapping ties of mutual interest, friendship, respect, and
commitment. For those without such ties &lt;nettime&gt; 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,
&lt;nettime&gt; provided a deliberately open context for disseminating,
debating, and documenting the wider range of ideas &#226; 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 &#226; 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," 1995&#226;1998
&lt;nettime&gt; 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. &lt;nettime&gt; 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.
&lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; 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 &#226; 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 &lt;nettime&gt;
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"&#226; for example,
guerilla video. We think not &#226; 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, &lt;nettime&gt; 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" &#226; 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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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
York&#226;based video artist-activist known for his confrontational
style, promoted a series of projects, including an alternative DNS
authority, and hijacked &lt;nettime&gt;'s subscriber base for his own
short-lived "&lt;nettime.free&gt;" 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 &lt;nettime&gt; and other forums with astonishing messages
that combined furious bile, ASCII art-inspired deconstructions, and
scathing and often-brilliant critiques of authoritarianism &#226; 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,
&lt;nettime-bold&gt;. Varied proposals for how the selection process (and
of course who is doing the selecting) could be made more flexible and
spontaneous were advance &#226; for example, by changing platforms from
a mailing list to something else in order to allow subscribers to do
their own idiosyncratic "text filtering" &#226; but nothing ever came of
them.
A third tension arose early on, which the &lt;nettime&gt; collectivity has
never found adequate ways to overcome: gender bias. Nettime has always
been very male &#226; not necessarily in terms of its subscriber base but
certainly in terms of its communication culture. There was quite a bit
of overlap between &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &lt;nettime&gt; as a resource for
younger activists. &lt;nettime&gt; 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
&lt;nettime&gt; 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 &lt;nettime&gt;'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 &lt;nettime&gt;'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 &lt;nettime&lt;'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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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.) &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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.
(2000&#226;2008)
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" &#226; 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, &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; 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. &lt;nettime&gt; by contrast, moved in the opposite
direction &#226; 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 (2008&#226;)
Two events cast into sharp relief some of the basic concerns
that have been important to &lt;nettime&gt;'s collectivity from the
beginning &#226; 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 &lt;nettime&gt;'s
discussions &#226; 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
&#226; and suddenly, they found mainstream resonance.
Particularly in the wake of 2008, as cultural funding dried up in
many countries, &lt;nettime&gt;'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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; many of which hadn't been voiced on the list
in years, in some cases because their advocates had long ago given
up &#226; were summarized in an April Fool's prank in 2015, in which we
announced that we were closing the list:
&lt;nettime&gt; 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
&#226; or, if you like, of the ex-West &#226; barely extends to Hungary
now, and has nothing to say to the decisive conflicts around Russia's
borders&#226;. 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
&#226; and reductively &#226; 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 &#226; 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 &#226; which is 95% of the list's
traffic &#226; think about those things?
We formulated these criticisms in the context of a failed effort to
stage a new and different &lt;nettime&gt; meeting: farther east than before,
and with a renewed emphasis on learning about where and how (and maybe
when) activist efforts had migrated &#226; 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, &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &#226; for example, eToy, the
Yes Men, and Ricardo Dominguez's "Floodnet." When their more radical
activities led upstream ISPs to shut these servers down, &lt;nettime&gt;
(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 &lt;nettime&gt; drift even deeper
into its own peculiarity &#226; as Morlock Elloi, a stauch pseudonymous
in the collectivity, put it in late 2015 &#226; 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"
&#226; which it no doubt was, to a certain extent. It also reflected
the aging demographic of &lt;nettime&gt;'s core members &#226; 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 &lt;nettime&gt;'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 &#226; and, crucially, to attract
younger contributors &#226; is very much an open question.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>Jaromil</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:35:29 +0100</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>prem . cnt</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:41:57 +0530</date>
<content>
&gt; On 4 Nov 2015, at 9:23 a.m., Brian Holmes &lt;bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com&gt; wrote:
&gt; 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?</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>David Garcia</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:07:23 +0000</date>
<content> 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, &lt;nettime&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.4</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>Eric Kluitenberg</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:20:35 +0100</date>
<content> 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 &lt;nettime&gt; 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 &lt;bhcontinentaldrift {AT} gmail.com&gt; 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
&lt;...&gt;</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.5</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>Brian Holmes</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:36:53 -0600</date>
<content> 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.&#194; 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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.6</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>Jaromil</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:26:17 +0100</date>
<content>On Thu, 05 Nov 2015, John Hopkins wrote:
&gt; I'm wondering if there are any deeper stats available -- in
&gt; retrospect -- such as subscriber numbers over time; posts over time,
&gt; etc... My email archive shows 22600 entries ... but I had a few gaps
&gt; 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 # &gt; !
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 Kj&#195;rulff
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 J&#195;inen
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 # C&#195;sare 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 # Cl&#195;udia 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 * &#195;..
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 # &#194; 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 # G&#195;n Bel&#195; 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 H&#195;llstr&#195;m
1 # Jo Anne Green
1 # jobtenbosch
1 # JODI
1 # Joe
1 # JoelleDietrick
1 # Joe Lockard
1 # joerlemans
1 # Johannes Auer
1 # Johan S&#195;derberg
1 # JOHN GRANT
1 # john.m.bowers
1 # johnnynenuco
1 # Jonatan S&#195;derstr&#195;m
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 |&#194;florian 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 Garc&#195;&#194;a
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 c&#195;enas
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 &gt;&gt; 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 Tempor&#195;r
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 # &#195;rsan
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 L&#195;er
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 M&#195;ndez
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 # Ren&#195; 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 # ""S&#195;ren Lundgaard (soren....
1 # spy emerson
1 # ssann_
1 # stdin
1 # stefaniekolk
1 # Stefan Schoorl|Virtueel Pla...
1 # stefko
1 # Stef van Dongen
1 # St&#195;phanie Majerus / Casino...
1 # St&#195;phanie 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 R&#195;
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 M&#195;
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 Pimi&#195;
1 # V M
1 # vragen
1 # vveelen
1 # wannk858
1 # wcameronjackson
1 # weareunmaking
1 # webartery
1 # webmaster
1 # wilmakun
1 # Wolfart Projectspaces
1 # Wolfgang S&#195; 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 # Bod&#195; Bal&#195;zs
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 # Dani&#195;l 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&gt;
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 # &#195;zg&#195;r 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 # &#194; 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 Baumg&#195;rtel
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 R&#195;
3 # Karen O'Rourke
3 # Kevin Flanagan
3 # Koen Martens
3 # kontakt |&#194;florian 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 # St&#195;phane Mourey
3 # Thomas Gramstad
3 # Timo Klok
3 # unsubscribe
3 # Vasilis Kostakis
3 # Wolfie Christl
3 # WSF L&amp;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&gt;
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 # &#195;zg&#195;r k.
4 # Rob Dyke
4 # Ryan Griffis
4 # Shawn K. Quinn
4 # Simona Lodi
4 # Steven Clift
4 # Tapas Ray [Gmail]
4 # Tilman Baumg&#195;el
4 # =?UTF-8?B?IEZyZWRlcmljayBGT...
4 # Vuk &#196;osi&#196;
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 S&#195;berg
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 Vald&#195;
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-No&#195;Montagn&#195; 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 &#224;&#195;..
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 ## &#195;rsan &#197;enalp
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 &amp;do tank
CTO and co-founder free/open source developer
&#229;&#229; 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>13.7</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; choose-your-own adventure: a brief history of nettim</subject>
<from>Newmedia</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:15:49 -0500</date>
<content>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 . . . &lt;g&gt;
Mark Stahlman
Jersey City Heights</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>nettime mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:38:46 -0100</date>
<content>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)</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>frank tigrero</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:08:36 -0400</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Sascha D. Freudenheim</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:18:23 -0400</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>John Young</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 13:56:46 -0400</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.4</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Tomasz Rola</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 7 Jun 2019 21:07:21 +0200</date>
<content>On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 01:18:23PM -0400, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote:
&gt; I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously!
&gt;
&gt; WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free
&gt; speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in
&gt; 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).
[...]
&gt; As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about
&gt; 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 **</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.5</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Sascha D. Freudenheim</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:49:37 -0400</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.6</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>John Preston</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 21:34:04 +0100</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.7</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Udruga UKE</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 8 Jun 2019 14:56:02 +0200</date>
<content>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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.8</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>John Preston</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 08 Jun 2019 15:06:56 +0100</date>
<content>Just forwarding this up.
From: Karim Brohi &lt;karim@trauma.org&gt;
Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST
To: John Preston &lt;wcerfgba@riseup.net&gt;
Subject: Re: &lt;nettime&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.9</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>John Preston</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 08 Jun 2019 07:45:08 -0700</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.10</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Ren&#233;e Lynn Reizman</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:15:59 -0700</date>
<content>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 &amp; grammatical mistakes that I don't catch until it's about a week later.
Anyways, just wanted to say hello!Ren&#233;ehttp://www.reneereizman.com</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.11</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Tom Keene</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:18:51 +0100</date>
<content>Hi Ren&#233;e,RE: I tend to make egregious typos &amp; 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...</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.12</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Sean Cubitt</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:21:58 +0000</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.13</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>voyd</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 09 Jun 2019 12:47:10 -0400</date>
<content>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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.14</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Jordan Crandall</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:15:41 -0700</date>
<content>Like Sean I&#8217;ve been active long ago, lurking for a decade or more. It&#8217;s good to be prodded to contribute. I thought of jumping in during some of the recent discussions, notably the &#8216;Rage against the machine&#8217; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.15</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>carlo von lynX</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:11:47 +0200</date>
<content>I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago&#8230;
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&#8230; maybe Pit
can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C.
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.16</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Molly Hankwitz</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:23:18 -0700</date>
<content>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 &lt;lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org&gt; wrote:I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago&#8230;
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&#8230; maybe Pit
can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.17</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Andr&#233; Rebentisch</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 30 Jun 2019 16:23:20 +0200</date>
<content>Most formerly valuable mailing lists are dead, Carlo.
Here you find a recent quote from Joichi Ito:
&#8220;You know that little girl in The Exorcist? That&#8217;s what the internet
feels like to me,&#8221; Ito said. &#8220;You have this little girl and you think
she&#8217;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.&#8221;
Source:
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/26/18758776/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resisting-reduction-exorcist-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast-interview
Andr&#233; Rebentisch</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.18</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>Molly Hankwitz</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:40:34 -0700</date>
<content>Forwarded on behalf of Nina---------- Forwarded message ---------From: "Nina Tempor&#228;r" &lt;nina-temp@gmx.de&gt;Date: Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:59 AMSubject: Aw: Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.To: Molly Hankwitz &lt;mollyhankwitz@gmail.com&gt;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 pa&#223;t 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" &lt;lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org&gt;
An: nettime-l@kein.org
Betreff: Re: &lt;nettime&gt; 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&#8230;
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&#8230; maybe Pit
can give it the original pitch back? Hugs from NK, C.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>14.19</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Fwd: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.</subject>
<from>John Preston</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:54:11 -0700</date>
<content>Thanks Nina, Molly, Andr&#233;, 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]:
&lt;nettime&gt; 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.
&#9996;&#65039;
[1] https://www.nettime.org/info.html</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>15.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; introducing {AT} nettime_bo</subject>
<from>nettime mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:31:18 +0100</date>
<content>On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:31:34AM -0800, morlockelloi {AT} yahoo.com wrote:
&gt; Would it be possible, for those who don't want their names ending on
&gt; TWTR disks, to have a Subject: tag that bypasses the bot - for example
&gt; "MO:" (mail only), like in:
Done -- and thank you for this excellent suggestion.
&gt;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)</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>16.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Down with moderation</subject>
<from>nettime's mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:03 +0200</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>16.1</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Up with moderation</subject>
<from>Brian Holmes</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:04:57 -0500</date>
<content>
And up with moderation.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>17.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; nettime past and future</subject>
<from>tbyfield</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 17:00:07 +0200</date>
<content>(I just dug this up -- maybe of interest.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - 8&lt; SNIP! 8&lt; - A- - - - - - - - - - -
To: nettime-l@kein.org
Subject: &lt;nettime&gt; digestion digest
From: nettime mod squad &lt;nettime@kein.org&gt;
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_|&lt;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&lt; SNIP! 8&lt; - - - - - - - - - - - -
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>17.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; nettime past and future</subject>
<from>Alan Sondheim</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:19:04 -0400 (EDT)</date>
<content>
of extreme interest, re the nudge-horizon of compression/containment</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>18.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Nettime-bold is dead</subject>
<from>the nettime mod squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Wed, 28 May 2003 19:17:40 +0200</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>19.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is dead</subject>
<from>anna balint</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 30 May 2003 16:27:12 +0200</date>
<content>
Dear mod squad,
i thought the contrary, that nettime is exactly the only list that failed
to remain open in the new media criticism&amp;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 &lt;nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net&gt; wrote:
&gt;Dear Nettimers,
&gt;
&gt;We are closing nettime-bold.
&gt;</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>19.1</nbr>
<subject>RE: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is dead</subject>
<from>cisler {AT} inreach.com</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sat, 31 May 2003 11:18:58 -0400</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>19.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime is dead</subject>
<from>Ian Dickson</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sat, 31 May 2003 19:06:59 +0100</date>
<content>
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"</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>20.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime-bold is &lt;bleep&gt;</subject>
<from>cpaul</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Thu, 29 May 2003 22:21:22 +1000</date>
<content>
On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:17:40 +0200
the nettime mod squad &lt;nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net&gt; wrote:
&gt; As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. First,
&gt; there was very little interest in it. At its best, nettime-bold had about
&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>20.1</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime-bold is &lt;bleep&gt;</subject>
<from>Eduardo Navas</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 30 May 2003 00:59:32 -0600</date>
<content>
&gt; &gt; As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one.
&gt; &gt; First, there was very little interest in it. At its best,
&gt; &gt; nettime-bold had about 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5%
&gt; &gt; the subscribers nettime-l had.
&gt;
&gt; I think these figures serve no useful purpose.
(you know the rest from the thread...)
&lt;--snip--&gt;
-----------------
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>20.2</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime-bold is &lt;bleep&gt;</subject>
<from>Andreas Broeckmann</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Fri, 30 May 2003 09:56:13 +0200</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>20.3</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; Nettime-bold is &lt;bleep&gt;</subject>
<from>cpaul</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Sat, 31 May 2003 02:09:33 +1000</date>
<content>
abroeck {AT} transmediale.de wrote:
&gt; the whole thing is really easy; you create a mailing list that
&gt; receives everything sent to nettime-l as a forward; this list is
&gt; nettime-bold
&gt; all you need to do is ask the nettime mods for including
&gt;
&gt; forward inc {AT} fastmedia.net
&gt;
&gt; and you get the whole thing unfiltered. become a bold archivist!
&gt; i am surprised why people are not more inventive when it
&gt; 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.</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>21.0</nbr>
<subject>Incredibly Important Administrativa, Sort of</subject>
<from>nettime</from>
<to>mettime-l-temp@material.net</to>
<date>Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:17:38 +0100</date>
<content>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
&lt;nettime-l-temp {AT} material.net&gt; is the temporary home of the nettime-l list
while desk.nl rebuilds its list-serving machine. please continue to send
messages to &lt;nettime-l {AT} desk.nl&gt; and your commands to &lt;majordomo {AT} desk.nl&gt;.
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 &lt;material.net&gt;; however, the *incom-
ing* addresses will be the same: mail for distribution to the
list goes to &lt;nettime-l {AT} desk.nl&gt;, and all majordomo commands--
un/subscriptions--to &lt;majordomo {AT} desk.nl&gt;. 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]
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>22.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; kein nettime-l</subject>
<from>nettime's_mod_squad</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:44:30 +0200</date>
<content>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:
-&gt; to post to the list: nettime-l {AT} kein.org
-&gt; to reach us: nettime {AT} kein.org
-&gt; 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 &lt;nettime&gt;: no commercial use without permission
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>23.0</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; kein nettime-l</subject>
<from>Andreas Broeckmann</from>
<to>nettime-l@kein.org</to>
<date>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:09:55 +0200</date>
<content>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
&gt;We'd like to offer our sincere thanks to thing.net, and the people who've
&gt;made bbs.thing.net such a fine home for nettime-l for eight years, almost
&gt;to the day. In particular, we'd like to thank Wolfgang Staehle for his
&gt;patient and generous support of the list (as well as many other excellent
&gt;projects in our neighborhood).
&gt;
&gt;Nettime's new home is at kein.org.
# distributed via &lt;nettime&gt;: no commercial use without permission
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>24.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; the we of nettim</subject>
<from>nettime maillist</from>
<to>nettime-l@desk.nl</to>
<date>Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:19:14 +0200</date>
<content>
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 &lt;your adress&gt;
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 &gt;some questions&lt; 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
&amp; 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 &lt;abroeck {AT} v2.nl&gt;
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
&lt;100136.14 {AT} CompuServe.COM&gt; 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 &lt;director {AT} kaapeli.fi&gt;
To: nettime {AT} Desk.nl
Subject: Suggestion for Nettime...
Dear Pit &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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" &lt;davidsol {AT} panix.com&gt;
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 &amp; moderated.
best,
db
=========================================================================
[from Budapest]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 01:40:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Steven Carlson &lt;steve {AT} pk4.com&gt;
Subject: enough homework already ...
&gt; The following is a homework assignment for Cook and Byfield (and anyone
&gt; 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.
&gt; Instead of being the curmudgeons scowling in the corner waiting for and
&gt; opportunity to piss on everyone, try and do/say something constructive
&gt; 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 &lt;glenn {AT} technologylaw.com&gt;
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 9:17am
Subject: CPSR Comments on Internet Domain Names
[.../p]
CC: "Glenn Manishin" &lt;glenn {AT} technologylaw.com&gt;
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 &amp; Cohen - Technology Law Group
Responsibility &lt;http://www.technologylaw.com&gt;
&lt;http://www.cpsr.org/home.html&gt; 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) &lt;http://www.cpsr.org/
home.html&gt;, by their attorneys, submit these
comments in response to the Notice
&lt;http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm&gt;
released by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA)
&lt;http://www.ntia.doc.gov&gt; 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) &lt;http://www.nsf.gov/&gt;,
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 &amp; David G. Post
&lt;http://www.cli.org/ emdraft.html&gt;.
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) &lt;http://www.iahc.org&gt; for revisions to
Internet domain name registration and
administration &lt;http://www.gtld-mou.org/&gt; 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) &lt;http://www.netsol.com/
papers/internet.html&gt; 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)
&lt;http://www.pab.gtld-mou.org&gt; 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 &lt;patrice {AT} xs4all.nl&gt;
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 &amp; 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 &amp;
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 &lt;Tilman_Baumgaertel {AT} compuserve.com&gt;
Subject: Bibles
Geert wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; By the way, there are several Bibles in the making now
(a quick, thick and dirty one and an academic American anthology). &lt;&lt;&lt;
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
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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
</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>24.0-p.471</nbr>
<subject>Re: &lt;nettime&gt; what is going on, on nettime?</subject>
<from>Alan Sondheim</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:53:39 -0400 (EDT)</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>24.0-p.471</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; what is going on, on nettime?</subject>
<from>geert</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:14:50 +0000</date>
<content>
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 &lt;sondheim {AT} panix.com&gt;
To: soft_skinned_space &lt;empyre {AT} lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au&gt;
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.
&lt;...&gt;</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>25.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Re: on moderation and spams (several messages)</subject>
<from>nettime's_digestive_system</from>
<to>nettime-l@desk.nl</to>
<date>Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:58:48 +0100</date>
<content>
From: Josephine Berry &lt;josie {AT} metamute.com&gt;
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 &lt;hopkins {AT} iex.net&gt;
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 &lt;pacoid {AT} fringeware.com&gt;
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" &lt;cinque {AT} kdi.com&gt;
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 &lt;pants {AT} flex.com.au&gt;
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
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>25.1</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Re: on moderation and spams (several messages)</subject>
<from>nettime's_digestive_system</from>
<to>nettime-l@desk.nl</to>
<date>Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:50:26 +0100</date>
<content>
To: post {AT} nettime.free.xs2.net
From: Matthew Fuller &lt;matt {AT} axia.demon.co.uk&gt;
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 &lt;peter {AT} xs4all.nl&gt;
Subject: Re: Welcome to Nettime.Free!
&gt;Welcome to NETTIME.FREE, the renewed, UNMODERATED AND OPEN
&gt;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.
&gt;Once again, there is an OPEN LIST for Nettime, free of
&gt;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.
&gt; 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.
&gt;anal-retentive book editors/librarians, respiratory diseases,
&gt;and other information-hostile elements that have corrupted
&gt;the intial mission of the nettime list as established by the
&gt;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?
&gt;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" &lt;mgoldh {AT} well.com&gt;
Subject: Moderation in all things? Re: &lt;nettime&gt; 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" &lt;erich-moechel {AT} quintessenz.at&gt;
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 &amp;
behaviour of certain protagonists a lesser pr/agency would be ashamed of.
This is not the list Pit Schulz &amp; 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
&amp; 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 &lt;jghicks {AT} wordswork.com&gt;
To: nettime's_digestive_system &lt;nettime {AT} Desk.nl&gt;
Subject: Re: on lurking
At 09:58 PM 10/13/98 +0100, Josephine Berry eloquently wrote:
&gt;No, but SERIOUSLY: most of us know how great the fear threshold is to
&gt;posting, but that doesn't mean that LURKERS are a bunch of labotomised
&gt;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
# &lt;nettime&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>26.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Surprise Attack: Re-Routing Nettime</subject>
<from>MediaFilter</from>
<to>nettime-l@desk.nl</to>
<date>Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:42:16 -0400</date>
<content>
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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>27.0</nbr>
<subject>[-empyre-] &#8230; once upon a time ...</subject>
<from>Melinda Rackham</from>
<to>&lt;empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au&gt;</to>
<date>Sun Jun 2 14:02:44 EST 2013</date>
<content>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.
&#8211;empyre&#8211; 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&#8230; (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 &#8211;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 Val&#233;rie Lamontagne and Sylvie Parent, both from Montr&#233;al 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, &#8211;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 &#8211;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&#8217;ve been there a while leave, others join for a specific guest or topic. Currently it&#8217;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 &#8211;empyre- are silently lurking&#8230; 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&#8217;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 &#8211;empyre-&#8216;s August guest - &#8220;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.&#8221;
List etiquette issues of course are always present&#8230; 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&#8217;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&#8217;ve had to remove or ask a few people to unsubscribe already. So it is quiet strict in that sense, however if people don&#8217;t like those guidelines there are many other lists available.
Initially I thought &#8211;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
******</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>27.1</nbr>
<subject>[-empyre-] &#8230; once upon a time ...</subject>
<from>Renate Ferro</from>
<to>&lt;empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au&gt;</to>
<date>Sun Jun 2 14:23:35 EST 2013</date>
<content>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</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>28.0</nbr>
<subject>&lt;nettime&gt; Re: the condition of net.time</subject>
<from>brian carroll</from>
<to>nettime-l@bbs.thing.net</to>
<date>Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:18:37 +0000</date>
<content>
# 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?</content>
</mail>
<mail>
<nbr>29.0</nbr>
<subject>nettime: het stuk</subject>
<from>j bosma</from>
<to>nettime-l@desk.nl</to>
<date>Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:08:29 +0100</date>
<content>
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
* &lt;nettime&gt; 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</content>
</mail>
</mails>
</chapter>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink