Ooh-la-la, the French Get (Inter)Net Neutrality Right: It's All About the Platform Monopolies-Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter etc.
Version with formatting, links and comments: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/ooh-la-la-the-french-get-internet-n eutrality-right-its-all-about-the-monopolies-google-amazon-facebook-twitter- etc/ http://tinyurl.com/qzlbzwc Ooh-la-la, the French Get (Inter)Net Neutrality Right: It's All About the Platform Monopolies-Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter etc. Michael Gurstein @michaelgurstein Amidst all the storm and thunder surrounding the ever-elusive Net Neutrality (NN) (the FCC call for comments on NN elicited some 1.1 million interventions), the actual point of the exercise at least from the perspective of those looking for an Internet supportive of an open, free, just and democratic Internet seems to have gotten rather lost. Whether "Net Neutrality" is or is not possible from a technical perspective - pragmatists argue yes, purists argue no; whether NN is or is not a fundamental necessity for innovation and economic progress; or whether NN is something that should even be addressed at all given that it represents for some the creeping hand of control over the Internet that so many find repugnant-all these issues and arguments are still raging in the OpEds and online forums from Silicon Valley to New York to Tokyo and beyond. Meanwhile the rather more fundamental issues of monopoly control of, in and through the Internet-content, services, even concepts and affect seems to have fallen off the agenda. The use of Internet monopoly control to further skew the possibility for competition and market innovation; how that monopoly control gives some help in avoiding taxation; how it has resulted in the flowing of revenues from Internet activities into the coffers of a very few and overwhelmingly US based corporations; is over-looked, avoided, perhaps deliberately obscured to be lost in plain-sight while the NN hounds go after ever more obscure technical NN rabbits. So it is refreshing to find a clear-sighted, clear-headed report-"Platform Neutrality: Building an Open and Sustainable Digital Environment" on what NN looks like when seen from outside of the tech pundit echo chamber. In fact according to this report, what NN really looks like isn't NN at all. Rather what the Centre Nationale de Numerique (CNNum) (French Digital Council), a French Internet and things digital think tank funded by and with some policy advisory role for the French Government have identified is the rather more pressing issue of what they term "Platform Neutrality", an interesting adaptation of a term usually used in software circles to point to (or away from) lock-in to one or another software "platform" (think Microsoft or SAP). The use of the terminology in fact is similar in that in the CNNum's use it refers to the Internet (and now mobile) based platforms - Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon - where similar issues of cross-platform interoperability, data portability, lock-in/lock-out for users, suppliers, competitors are quite parallel. The current report builds on an earlier report and "Opinion" on Network Neutrality" which significantly focused more on Network outputs (from the end user perspective) than on Network inputs i.e. the technical details of how bits flow through digital networks and where the conventional notion of Net Neutrality is significantly extended as follows: Net neutrality enforcement for platforms must do more than just protect consumers' well-being. It must also protect the well-being of citizens by ensuring that the Internet's role as a catalyst for innovation, creation, expression and exchange is not undermined by development strategies that close it off. thus linking notions of Net Neutrality with notions of the rights of citizens including for free expression and free exchange. This new report, beginning from the notion of what they call "service platforms", directly linked to the user-facing output notions from their Net Neutrality document goes on to discuss Platform Neutrality in the following terms .service platforms have followed a different development path (from (communication) network platforms) foregoing completely the national monopoly stage: the low level of initial investment required has made it possible to quickly build up dominant platforms on user functions that fully harness the network effect. As long as they continue to go unchallenged by either the political community or by other industry players, their powerful position will be maintained. This is the crux of their highly interesting and innovatively political economic analysis-recognizing that these Internet "platforms" have been "born digital and global" (and thus from their inception outside of the range or even visibility of national regulation or regulators); that they are a new type of business/innovation model- low capitalization, multiple functionalities, and rapid deployment; and perhaps most important that unless they are "challenged" (regulated, effectively competed with) their "powerful (monopoly) p
new email list on the history of webcultures
WebCultures aims to bring together a growing number of researchers in the fields of web and internet history as well as the many archivists, artists, theorists, ethnographers, social scientists, critics and practitioners whose work intersects with the history of the web and new media culture. Ideally, the list will provide relevant announcements as well as a space for rich discussion and collaboration, for example around the following topics and questions: Mapping the field What are established and emerging themes in web and internet history? Is it already possible to map a web historiography, in the sense of an overview of canonical questions, approaches and knowledge? How does existing work address the range of possible histories of web cultures, producers and users, media and communication forms, websites and platforms, web aesthetics, standards and protocols, software and programming languages, groups and institutions? Education Where do web and internet history fit in existing media studies and communications programs? What kinds of digital media history courses are being developed? Should students born in the 1990s learn about Gopher or the development of RSS - and if so, what are the best ways to interest and motivate them? Resources and methods What on- and offline archives related to web and internet history are available, and how else is this history being preserved? What methods and tools are available for web archiving and for mining existing web archives? How can knowledge of the specific problems involved in doing web history be pooled? Relationship to other domains How can web history build on existing work in media and communications history? What does it have to offer research focused on newer objects of study such as social media platforms and the Whatsapp generation of communication apps? Conversely, how does the appearance of these new objects affect how we view and research web history? Institutionalization What is the discipline’s status? What conferences, journals, funding opportunities and jobs are out there, or should be out there? Of course, this list of topics may prove to be too ambitious, or not ambitious enough. Hopefully, at the very least, the mailing list will provide a better sense of who’s working in this fast-growing field. For any questions or subscription issues, please contact the list administrator (me) at michael [at] webcultures [dot] org email: webcultu...@listcultures.org If you want to subscribe, goto: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/webcultures_listcultures.org From: Michael Stevenson Hello world, The response to the list has been excellent so far, with 130+ people signing up to WebCultures since Tuesday's announcement. Because of the success, I think we should go ahead and declare this list open for business. Feel free to start posting announcements or get discussions going. Do you have ideas about what kind of list you’re hoping for? Do you have a history project you want to publicize? Looking for pro tips for using the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine? Do you think a list called WebCultures is doomed to become an exercise in nostalgia? Know some art projects that this audience should see? Are you designing a course on internet history or digital culture and want some feedback? As with all mailing lists, please make sure to keep the archives nice and neat by replying to the correct thread (rather than to the digest, if you’ve signed up for that). If you really want to make it easy to browse the archives, please remove quoted text that isn’t relevant to your reply. And finally, if you’re posting for the first time, perhaps tell us who you are and what you’re working on or what your interest in WebCultures is. In the next few days and weeks, I’ll try and break the ice by asking a few people to get us started. But by all means feel free to start posting! About me: I’m an assistant professor at the University of Groningen in the department of Journalism studies. I got here via the University of Amsterdam, where I finished my PhD last year. My dissertation was on the history of web exceptionalism, and looks at how visions of the web’s identity and purpose were articulated at various moments in the history of web publishing (with cases on HotWired, Slashdot and early blogging). Although the courses I teach are varied and I have yet to actually teach a course just on web or new media history, students are now used to me badgering them constantly to dig into 1990s material to historicize whichever app or web platform they’re researching. Also, I’ll be at IR15 in Daegu this October, so hope to see some of you there! -Michael # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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.ne
Goanet 20 yrs!
Hi,
Goanet is as old as nettime - and still going strong (if querulous at
times ;-)
Cheers, p+2D!
> August 25th, 2014
>
>
> Dear Goanetters,
>
> Today Goanet passes a remarkable milestone -- it's 20th anniversary!
>
> Today, we take the internet for granted. We spend so much time on the
> internet hashtagging memorieson Twitter and Instagram, following our
> friends on Facebook, searching Google for everything buying stuff, trading
> emails, and so on. The internet keeps us connected to the rest of the
> world at all times.
>
> But 20 years ago, the internet as we know it was just getting started, and
> people didn?t really know what to make of it. In those days the internet
> was not as user friendly. But, a small group of managed to fine each other
> on Internet Relay Chat and started a mailing list. The first mailing list
> was really just people sending emails to my inbox prefaced with a *, and
> I'd forward them on to users who signed up. After a year or so we had our
> first mailing list program do the work for us. And, here we are today.
>
> Goanet has remained a volunteer-driven operation. We've had many
> volunteers over the last 20 years. A few volunteers need to be singled
> out. No one has done more work than our very own Frederick Noronha ("FN").
> In addition to moderating the mailing list, FN contributes immensely.
> Bosco D'Mello is another one of our moderators with 10-15 years of
> service. Viviana Coelho also contributed 5-10 years of service.
>
> These are huge contributions to the community. And, I thank each of them
> for the time and effort they have given us. I also wish to thank all the
> other volunteers who have contributed to Goanet.
>
> Goanet has brought the international Goan community together. It has been
> a platform for launching other very successful groups and projects. While
> Goanet has not lived up to it's full potential it has still had an impact.
>
> Folks, please volunteer in whatever capacity you can to help sustain our
> group. We have an opportunity to make a difference in Goa and to support
> out international Goan community. You don't have to be tech savvy to
> volunteer. And, please donate to help sustain our growth. Every little bit
> counts.
>
> I'll end here by congratulating all our members for making this possible.
>
> Viva Goanet! Viva Goa!
>
>
> Herman Carneiro
# distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, part III, section 6 (concluded)
Dear Nettimers,
With this issue of Nettime's Facebook Aquarium 'feuilleton', we have
reached the end of part III, and of the book as well. This - I repeat',
Q&D, 'Quick & Dirty' - translation will now undergo a tedious process of
revision and editing, including a without doubt scathing censure by the
Ippolita collective ;-)
And I am going on holiday!
Enjoy!
Cheerio,
patrizio & Dnooos!
Groningen, August 25, 2014
--
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III
The Freedoms of the Net
Beyond technophobia: let's build convivial technologies together! (section
6, concluded)
Collaboration can progressively evolve into convivial technology, but only
in so far as it stops being part of the ongoing chatter, addresses a real
audience, and starts creating a shared space, a space that can be
developed both in an individual and in a collective sense [47]. If a space
succeeds in giving individuals a sense of fulfillment, then it might get
visited, shared, and used. Such a territory is a collective one, (it
represent a different system with regard to individuals. It is something
not existing before, a radical creation, in the words of Castoriadis an
/imaginary institution/, directed by a /magmatic logic/ [48x]. To use a
convivial technology together (with other people) means to change, to
alter reality, to modify one's own reality, and even more generally, to
change the world around us.
In the group dynamics method(ology), the principal query, and at the same
time, the main issue, is about the extent and limits of the collective
[49]. All collaborative activities have their own ceilings which can be
formulated in /qualitative/, /quantitative/, and /time-bound ('temporal'
)/ fashion. Certain /qualitative/ limits are self-evident, since
collective work is undoubtedly not by definition conform to an
individual's expectations, those of the individual self as unfolding
(self-)development within a collective self. It is, in a certain sense,
less precise, as the perceptions of a single individual subject are not
the same as those of the collective subject. Both subjects are in a stage
of coming-into-being, and require a continuous and controlled interplay
and exchange. This is why doing things alone is far easier and less
troublesome than doing the same in a group. To operate within a group is
painful in so far that one has to renounce having the final word, and that
one has to know how to reconcile (the) various positions (in presence),
given the fact that one's own identity is under continuous re-assessment.
The individual has to entrust a piece of her/his own self-expression to
others. If sHe tries to keep control over everything sHe chokes the
collective and takes up a dominant role, something for which sHe will then
be endlessly blamed, even in those case where people end up agreeing with
her/him.
It is essential to be exacting (in one's endeavours), but there is a ready
risk to become a 'guru', and then, imperceptibly, a faultfinder [or a
pundit ;-)]. Therefore it is essential to keep the (group dynamics) method
in mind as a positive limit, which limit will also be a /quantitative/ one
with respect to the time and the energy one can (sensibly) exert in a(ny
given) collective activity. And it will be even more difficult to achieve
harmony in a project when there are large differences in the matter of
personal investment (commitment). Those who put in the most effort into a
project are subsequently unable to do more and to compensate for the
others' presumed or real failings. There are two causes, related yet
opposed, for this (state of affairs): the first is external, the second
internal to the person involved. The more one invest oneself (in a
project) the greater the risk other participants will get upset, since
this attitude thwarts diffuse autonomy; while on the other hand, the
individual is likely to take too much upon her/himself. SHe will then
demand some form of gratitude in exchange, was it only to compensate for
her/his frustrations ("I am doing all the work here" and "It won't happen
without me" are typical statements at that juncture). But the others will
be loath to grant it, in order to keep the collective running and not
debase their own personal contribution. So, seen from an economic
viewpoint, /to do more/ does not necessarily mean /to do better/:
collaboration demands that both its limits and the rules governing these
to be under continuous re-negotiation.
Pure, blind voluntarism is most often counter-productive. A sensible and
constructive imbalance creatively sliding towards disorder and the
unexpected often requires us to step back a little in order to better
distribute one's energies in favor of others. This is not altruism, but
simply sound strategy. Excessive imbalances should be avoided, just as
downward levelling: the rhythm of the participant(s) showing the least
enthusiasm and putting the least effort should n
Re: Evgeny Morozov: How much for your data? (LMD)
Quoth Felix Stalder: > First, it's absolutely unclear, what from which position the critique > is developed. While it's easy to agree that something is bad -- and > tech utopianism and hyperbole are easy targets for critique -- it's > much harder to say what would be good. EM makes passing reference > to "the common, beloved by radical democrats, or something else" > but that's it. But also long as there is no sense of alternative, > then all such a critique manages to produce is vague fear and > conservative/reactionary sentiments. Not by intention, I presume, but > by effect. I found it unsatisfying for the same reasons. He is very right to bring up issues like the change of work relations to being in some ways much more subservient to the organising entity (e.g. AirBnB), and for which means like union organising don't fit readily. But unions grew up to be useful in the context of a large hierarchy of the sort that these new organisations change - not flatten, or remove, of course, but nevertheless alter. Surely he doesn't think that the best possible organisation of labour is strong unions in an antagonistic relationship with managers in large and rigidly hierarchical organisations. Nick # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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
World at War? Counter-revolution and Unbalanced Multipolarism
dear 'timers, we are living in a William Gibson novel and it ain't pretty: hypermediatization, random cruelty, aberrant irrationality, political and ecological disintegration seem to rule the world. yet there is a simple hobbesian logic to this all - i propose a simple model to interpret the horrific events of 2014 based on two hypotheses - one that the counter-revolution is trying to gain the upper hand in the Middle East and elsewhere after the revolutionary wave of 2011 (let's call it the thermidorian hypothesis, incarnated by say Sisi and Netanyahu) and two that we have entered a geopolitical era based on a multipolar system which is unbalanced, i.e. where regional powers vie for influence and dominance in the various areas of the world and sectors of the global economy, augmenting the risk of war. Since the G20 was first convened in April 2009 to address the macroeconomic imbalances created by the financial crisis, it's clear that the West is no longer in control of the world, and emergent powers and sovereign funds increasingly call the shots. The reckless bid to global hegemony launched by bushism in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed miserably and marked an end to the post-cold-war world order of unipolar (and often unilateral) American power, the "hyperpuissance" as the French called it, of the 90s and 00s. The Arab Spring and its aftermath has further exposed the political and military weakness of the US and its EU allies. The intervention of the west was crucial only in Libya, and it was initiated by the French and only reluctantly Obama joined. Unfortunately, the overthrow and execution of Qaddafi (justified in my eyes) has not led to some rough kind of democracy but to civil war and a failed state in the former Italian colony. Only in Tunisia, the homeland of the revolution, there is no attempt to return to the status quo ante, as an uneasy dynamic has set in opposing the muslim majority in government and the secular urban young minorities who did the revolution, and especially women fighting for their rights against clerical interference. It was the same of dynamic (let's call it the muslim brothers vs black bloc hooligans for theatric effect) that was at work during Morsi's short democratic tenure, interrupted by the military coup at behest of Saudi Arabia, the true evil power of the region, possibly even more than Assad's murderous regime, in the light of the fact that it has spawned ISIS, the nightmare finally come true: a revolutionary army of ideological and sectarian fanatics loaded with weapons and cash, bent on establishing the Sunni Caliphate across Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, and the whole Ummah. This is not the Al Qaeda beheaded by Obama, it's an open call to jihadists across the world to conquer muslim land unjustly apportioned by European powers after Versailles and slaughter the infidels, starting with Kurdish and especially Shia people, a confession for centuries dominated by Sunni despotism that is turning the tables of history favoring the rise of Iran and the power it built after the 1979 revolution, decidedly the year that the 21st century started (the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Carter roasted himself to peanuts). Of course it is in Syria-Iraq, Gaza and Ukraine that the geopolitical fault-lines of multipolarism are exposing major volcanic activity, and the lava is engulfing thousands and thousands of innocent people killed remorselessly for dreams of great power and millennial territorial expansion. Let's see Syria first. Almost 200,000 people have died since Assad, like Qaddafi before him, started bombing his own people. Homs is an open-air cemetery, Aleppo, once the capital of the Umayyad empire (the mosque that testified their long-gone power was destroyed last year - an archeological crime against humanity just like Jonas' tomb destroyed by ISIS a few weeks ago, or the Banyan Buhddas by the talebans fifteen years ago) has been reduced to a mound of rubble. Since the US and the UK dithered over direct intervention and ultimately appeased Putin over Syria, ISIS has defeated all other (mostly Qatari-funded) islamist fighting organizations and become the most fearful enemy of Shias in the region and of the west in the world. Northern Iraq and Western Syria are theirs, while Kurdistan is threatened: this is the fearsome Islamic State. The Syrian war is a nest of ideological and geopolitical contradictions. Assad's Alawite (minor shia sect) army is helped by Hezbollah (the popular Lebanese shia miliatias which are fighting as proxies of Iran) against the islamist forces funded by Saudi Arabia (ISIS) and Qatar (Islamic Front), as well as other formations and other emirates. The Free Syrian Army seems to count as much as the Iraqi army, which melted at the sight of thousands of black-flagged and black-clad jihadists on gun-toting pick-up trucks. The incredible number of victims and refugees of the Syrian war mostly belong to the civilian sunni majority of Syria. Rising
