> Florian wrote: One could argue that today's mainstream social media critique > has finally caught up with the critical media theory of 10-15 years ago. The difference is that 10-15 years ago the unprecedented popularity of the social media platforms coupled with mobile devices was a long way off. Though clearly important digital cultures had not yet been mainstreamed by being universally integrated into every aspect daily life and thus a Durheimian “total social fact”.
As Noortje Maares describes in (Digital Sociology) examples such as the Samaritan Radar debacle are just one of many instances of what happens when the the temporal boundaries between knowledge and intervention evaporate. The epistemic consequences of this particular boundary being eroded is profound and still poorly understood. We are going well beyond Wendy Chun’s (admittedly very important) Control & Freedom interpretations (particularly -if I remember correctly- as this book now seems overly skeptical about the potential of Big Data analytics to exercise genuine control). Bruce Sterling is I think right to champion of high stakes Margaretha Vestager (times a thousand) institutional juridical/political interventions. As only contiental scale attacks are capable of rattling the cages of the Silicon Valley Behemoths (thats why I am hostile to the position left wing Brexiteers in the UK -“Lexiteers"-). Again I agree with Bruce Sterling that making the alternatives “more glamerous and appealing” than the existing platforms is vital or making them “Keuwle" in the Patrice argot. This will only happen if the dynamism and authenticity of on-line sub-cultures are part of the mix. When Patrice questions whether 'Scaling up' is the eternal dream of actionism is it realistic? I reply yes! As was so disturbingly well demonstrated by the success of the alt.right. So in that sense Patrice is bang on when he argues that “Good old political struggle in a new shape" is the way to go and thats why I continue to put some cautious hope in the rise and rise of an increasingly tech savvy Momentum (the UK Labor Party’s Corbyn supporting outfit) that could become a forum for addressing the power of platform capitalism. As Momentum appears to be squaring the circle of evolving a DIY mediatized politics with an understanding of the importance of also doing infrastructural politics. David Garcia On 15 Jan 2018, at 19:16, Florian Cramer <flrnc...@gmail.com> wrote: > One could argue that today's mainstream social media critique has finally > caught up with the critical media theory of 10-15 years ago. The major > arguments have already been made in, among others, Wendy Chun's "Control and > Freedom" from 2005. Today's social media critique is a simplified, moralizing > version of that earlier theory, much like Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves > to Death" was a simplified, moralizing, popularized version of McLuhan's > 1960s theory of electronic mass media. > > Still, I see the need for a renewed critical social media critique; one that > shifts its focus from the politics of algorithms to what I'd propose to call > the condition of civil disengagement. No matter the algorithms and no matter > whether we use mainstream or alternative social media (such as diaspora, > Mastodon or Nettime), social media's ubiquity and unavoidability have created > a toxic and often dangerous environment for any kind of personal engagement. > Anyone who is involved in social or political activism, or even just blogging > (as the current case of German blogger Richard Gutjahr shows - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqZiwRk1yLQ), faces severe personal risks, > among others through trolling, doxxing and cybermobbing. "Gamergate" set a > precedent that has become the standard. Most existing, available criminal > justice systems have proven to provide inadequate protection. (Both Zoe > Quinn's and Gutjahr's cases are textbook example; on Gutjahr, see his > [German] writeup: http://www.gutjahr.biz/2018/01/hatespeech/). > > It means that no Chinese "social credit" algorithm is necessary to discourage > social engagement or political resistance. It is not even a question of > "better" algorithms - whether "better" algorithmic governance within existing > social networks or through the creation of "different"/alternative social > networks -, since the issue will remain, being one of an 'apparatus' or an > 'actor network' transcending binary distinctions of machinic and human > agency. (The question whether a troll is a human or a bot, isn't very > relevant.) > > Articulation of positions [including artist's positions outside self-chosen > safe spaces] is rapidly becoming a privilege of those who can afford their > defense. > > -F > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Alex Foti <alex.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > so should facebook pay us basic income? i think some ft editorialist argued > as much. but that would mean putting fb on a utility-like pedestal. i m no > media theorist and so forgive me for intruding, but i wonder how the latest > tweak to the fb algorithm (less news, more cousins) will affect participation > to a platform which is only relevant for people that are millennial or older. > as a creator of a movement medium in 2010 which listed news and events from > and about social centers, i couldn't fail to notice how users and organizers > migrated there to communicate events - today most of the traffic to MilanoX > comes from facebook on mobile and this applies to anything the autonomist > left communicates in milano. so we can't really afford to leave fb right now. > However social media fatigue is apparent in its most enthusiastic users: > teens. Instagram is no longer growing and Snapchat's failure to remain > relevant shows that once you turn 15 you have something better to do with > your life than snapping. They seem to understand that it generates social > anxiety and superficial communication. i guess we should create a social > medium that really addresses the needs of teens for self-emancipation from > authority and conformism. times could be ripe for smartly political social > media. i also wonder whether mass live streaming will become a thing in > europe after it did in china. > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:36 AM, olivier auber <olivieraub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Before leaving Facebook, here's the bill. > USD 350,000,000,000,000 > Three hundred Fifty Thousand Billion Dollar > > Open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook. > > Hi Mark! > > Best wishes and congratulations on your good resolutions 2018! > > 1) you tell us you have realized that "with the rise of a small number of big > tech companies — and governments using technology to watch their citizens — > many people now believe technology only centralizes power rather than > decentralizes it." > > Only a belief? Isn't it a little real? And you're here for something, aren't > you? > > On top of that, you tell us that you are "interested to go deeper and study > the positive and negative aspects of these technologies (of decentralization)" > > It's cool ! You should know that others have been working on decentralization > for a long time - already long before Facebook was created - to create the > conditions for a more equitable and healthy society. If your awareness is > real, you can probably help us. We lack developers! > > 2) You also seem to have understood that your algorithms made people crazy by > flooding them with sponsored posts and fake news. You say: "strengthening our > relationships improves our well-being and happiness." So you're going to > modify some lines of code to reinforce what you call our "strong ties" that > have a lot of "value" according to you. In the end you want "the time we all > spend on Facebook is time well spent". > > It's cool ! However, my dear Mark, you must understand that this time is even > more precious than what you imagine. > > For my part, let's say I spend(t) about an hour a day on Facebook developing > these strong ties and my own professional documentation. Apart from that, I > also spend(t) some "recreational time". This point is mentioned below*. > > But as my strong ties and my documentation are irrecoverable by the Facebook > backup system as I explained to your college Yann LeCun**, I must note that > Facebook stole them from me. > > Let's see how much it costs ... > > 365 hours a year, that is round to 50 days. If I count my day price at USD > 1,000 (it's very reasonable, FB's lawyers are paid USD 1,000 per hour), > that's USD 50,000 a year. Since I have been on Facebook for 7 years, I will > send you a USD 350,000 bill > > All the statistics indicate that I am an average user of Facebook in terms of > duration of use. Hence we can multiply this cost by the number of users (not > the current 2 billion but say 1 billion as an average number during the past > seven years). Thus we obtain the figure of: > > USD 350,000,000,000,000 > Three hundred Fifty Thousand Billion Dollar > > In conclusion, my dear Mark, you provide a true interoperability of personal > data that would allow people not to be hostages of Facebook and its > centralization, or you repay all of them! > > Yours > > Olivier Auber > > (*) The recreational time is not counted. Indeed, the entertainment provided > by Facebook is funded by advertising. That is to say that everyone pays for > this entertainment through its daily consumption of products overcharged > because of the advertising budgets of the brands captured to a large extent > by Facebook ..; > > (**) Open letter to Yann LeCun, former Professor at College de France, Head > of Research in Artificial Intelligence at Facebook. > http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=YannLeCunEnglish > > 1) Resolution 1: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104380170714571 > 2) Resolution 2: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571 > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > -- > I'm on diaspora*, a non-corporate social network: > https://social.gibberfish.org/people/a76da580ba9b013533100007cb0b1a05 > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
