On 13/03/18 23:26, Morlock Elloi wrote: >> What do you mean by "confronting on an infrastructure level" and >> "liberating the infrastructure"? Sure, one thing is to understand the > > 1. Requiring equal access to switches and fiber. Like cities (most so > far) cannot have private streets, and like Ma Bell was forced to provide > phone service to everyone, and anyone was able to call anyone, everyone > should be able to route and receive arbitrary packets. Not necessarily > for free, but comparable to lifeline phone service cost.
Who will own and who will mine for the minerals? Etc. These arguments or proposed technology trajectories are irrelevant, they are directed at mere superficial appearances: the problem goes a little deeper than that. First land, first seeds, first house building materials and fuel for heating.... ..... Then.... if...... the land can sustain a cyberspace (and you can probably stop there) and humans want to sow technoseeds, then you can have your moment in the sun with these ideas. However, at that stage they will be (largely) irrelevant, since the ownership models of land and seeds could, maybe would, perpetatuate themselves throughout any added superstructure in a sensible manner, just as they currently are perpetuated in a destructive, power amassing/concentrating manner. This whole debate reminds me of the current medical paradigm chasing symptoms, removing tumours, leaving causes in place: they are good for business and so it goes for tech critique... or the lefty academic rhetorical grandstanding... or... whatever.. Got to stay in business, right? Bite the hand that feeds? Oh dear, oh no... # 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:
