Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
The hardest part about computer science is the naming of things. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:05 PM BishopZ wrote: > What is netttime? > Same as Diaspora- may they rest in peace? > Byzantine perhaps? > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:41 PM BishopZ wrote: > >> [image: wSxgs.png] >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch >> wrote: >> >>> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: >>> > >>> > Hi André, >>> > >>> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the >>> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. >>> >>> Dear Max, >>> >>> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting >>> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list >>> infrastructure channels. >>> >>> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online >>> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, >>> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude >>> channel rules became obsolete. >>> >>> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality >>> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or >>> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior >>> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead >>> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when >>> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content >>> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop >>> up again after an archive regeneration etc. >>> >>> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an >>> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of >>> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that >>> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on >>> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to >>> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) >>> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot >>> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. >>> >>> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't >>> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are >>> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no >>> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. >>> >>> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list >>> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead >>> communication channels come to new light. >>> >>> Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. >>> >>> > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a >>> > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless >>> > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an >>> > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. >>> >>> Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? >>> >>> > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one >>> > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten >>> > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? >>> >>> Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose >>> the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious >>> debate and thought. >>> >>> Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the >>> insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always >>> hate mobs that try to engage us. >>> >>> Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but >>> to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) >>> explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am >>> after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ >>> >>> 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online >>> debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... >>> only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past >>> and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or >>> her pivotal moment. >>> >>> Best, >>> André >>> >>> >>> # 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 >>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >>> >> >> >> -- >> ((º Ω º)) >> >> http://bishopZ.com >> ___ >> > > > -- > ((º Ω º)) > > http://bishopZ.com > ___ > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com ___
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
What is netttime? Same as Diaspora- may they rest in peace? Byzantine perhaps? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:41 PM BishopZ wrote: > [image: wSxgs.png] > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch wrote: > >> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: >> > >> > Hi André, >> > >> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the >> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. >> >> Dear Max, >> >> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting >> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list >> infrastructure channels. >> >> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online >> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, >> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude >> channel rules became obsolete. >> >> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality >> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or >> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior >> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead >> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when >> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content >> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop >> up again after an archive regeneration etc. >> >> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an >> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of >> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that >> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on >> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to >> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) >> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot >> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. >> >> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't >> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are >> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no >> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. >> >> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list >> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead >> communication channels come to new light. >> >> Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. >> >> > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a >> > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless >> > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an >> > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. >> >> Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? >> >> > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one >> > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten >> > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? >> >> Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose >> the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious >> debate and thought. >> >> Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the >> insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always >> hate mobs that try to engage us. >> >> Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but >> to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) >> explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am >> after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ >> >> 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online >> debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... >> only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past >> and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or >> her pivotal moment. >> >> Best, >> André >> >> >> # 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 >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> > > > -- > ((º Ω º)) > > http://bishopZ.com > ___ > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com ___ # 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...@kei
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
[image: wSxgs.png] On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:32 PM André Rebentisch wrote: > Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > > > Hi André, > > > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the > > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. > > Dear Max, > > almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting > anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list > infrastructure channels. > > Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online > communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, > mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude > channel rules became obsolete. > > A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality > communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or > opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior > consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead > to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when > you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content > from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop > up again after an archive regeneration etc. > > Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an > exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of > Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that > country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on > his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to > converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) > could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot > respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. > > Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't > moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are > suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no > org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. > > You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list > communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead > communication channels come to new light. > > Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > > > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an > > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. > > Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > > > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one > > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? > > Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose > the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious > debate and thought. > > Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the > insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always > hate mobs that try to engage us. > > Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but > to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) > explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am > after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ > > 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online > debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... > only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past > and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or > her pivotal moment. > > Best, > André > > > # 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 > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com ___ # 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 # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > Hi André, > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. Dear Max, almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list infrastructure channels. Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude channel rules became obsolete. A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop up again after an archive regeneration etc. Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead communication channels come to new light. Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious debate and thought. Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always hate mobs that try to engage us. Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or her pivotal moment. Best, André # 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 # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: limits of networks...
Thank you Molly! I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making networks now Please do! R On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:14 AM Molly Hankwitz wrote: > Dear Kristoffer, et al, > > Yes, you have hit on it for me... > > need new ways of modeling networks also beyond the canonical Baran > diagram of centralized, decentralized and distributed, along with > nodocentric visualizations that have been so prevalent from the 1990's > and basically up until today?> > > Very important - as it is not the tools per se or the platform, but now, > possibly new contexts in which even tactical media or “community-based” > networks occur, which utilize varied tools. > > I have been doing both artistic/curatorial research and community-based > work with non-profits around these overlaps. With waterwheel.net, a team > of 30 curators programmer online performance and events for a week with 120 > artists from all over the world. This project, the brainchild of Suzanne > Fuks and James Cunningham, utilized popular online tools such as Skype and > Facebook and email - along with a custom designed media archive and online > performance space. Suzanne kept this network in close connection for 3 > years. We integrated our work remotely with the Balance/Unbalance festival > at Arizona State. For me, this project about water and art was, in addition > to the art, ingenious for a) it’s utilization without apology of everyday > social media b) it’s capavity to connect in person and online via online > performance space - for conferences/panels such that we all actually “saw” > and “met” and heard each other. I am still connected to many of the artists > I worked with! > > Local “campaigns”, for instance, for safe walking streets - from senior > citizen groups - use Twitter, FB, etc and more to “network” —while neither > art nor sophisticated, these campaigns do represent living communities with > “interest in common” - condition of the old online communities AND, > importantly, blur distinctions between virtual spaces and “real” spaces. > > The latter point may seem crude, but it’s possible that social networks > such as these are an historical advancement on communities which put the > network before the flesh meet, or never had a flesh meet and died OR never > had the “real” profile pic at least to color and pepper the imagination. > > I’m no fan of Facebook per se...but it’s not FB alone, but a helpful > feature of FB to have visuals... > > So talking theory...I throw this bone...with bandwidth depletion out of > the way and compression technologies vastly superior, network practices > have been able to better color-in their members...add more > graphics...enrich and make robust vision of community. This may be an > important development in network practice and one to assist radical > practice...as well as a reason why we are occasionally depleted by > text-only communication. > > I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making > networks now > > Molly > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kristoffer Gansing > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Maybe I can take the opportunity to plug in to the running discussions >> by shamelessly plugging the announcement of the next transmediale >> festival which aims to deal exactly with the topics of networks, as it >> appeared here as a recurring common concern. >> https://2020.transmediale.de/festival-2020 >> >> I think its quite interesting how the thread on nettime being in a bad >> shape and the one Rachel O' Dwyer started on net-art is converging >> around questions that have to do with how the limits of networks have >> become more tangible today, technically as well as in the form of >> "network idealism". >> >> Molly Hankwitz wrote: >> >> > 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... >> >> Rachel: >> >> > Can we still speak about ?tactical media? or ?the exploit?, and if not >> is >> > this because >> > >> > a) network activism has transformed so that these older descriptions no >> > longer accurately describe net art and ?hacktivist? practices, or >> > >> > b) these art practices have stayed much the same, but they are no longer >> > effective in the current political and economic context? >> >> I would not agree with David Garcia that these meta-discussions is a >> sign of
Re: limits of networks...
Dear Kristoffer, et al, Yes, you have hit on it for me... Very important - as it is not the tools per se or the platform, but now, possibly new contexts in which even tactical media or “community-based” networks occur, which utilize varied tools. I have been doing both artistic/curatorial research and community-based work with non-profits around these overlaps. With waterwheel.net, a team of 30 curators programmer online performance and events for a week with 120 artists from all over the world. This project, the brainchild of Suzanne Fuks and James Cunningham, utilized popular online tools such as Skype and Facebook and email - along with a custom designed media archive and online performance space. Suzanne kept this network in close connection for 3 years. We integrated our work remotely with the Balance/Unbalance festival at Arizona State. For me, this project about water and art was, in addition to the art, ingenious for a) it’s utilization without apology of everyday social media b) it’s capavity to connect in person and online via online performance space - for conferences/panels such that we all actually “saw” and “met” and heard each other. I am still connected to many of the artists I worked with! Local “campaigns”, for instance, for safe walking streets - from senior citizen groups - use Twitter, FB, etc and more to “network” —while neither art nor sophisticated, these campaigns do represent living communities with “interest in common” - condition of the old online communities AND, importantly, blur distinctions between virtual spaces and “real” spaces. The latter point may seem crude, but it’s possible that social networks such as these are an historical advancement on communities which put the network before the flesh meet, or never had a flesh meet and died OR never had the “real” profile pic at least to color and pepper the imagination. I’m no fan of Facebook per se...but it’s not FB alone, but a helpful feature of FB to have visuals... So talking theory...I throw this bone...with bandwidth depletion out of the way and compression technologies vastly superior, network practices have been able to better color-in their members...add more graphics...enrich and make robust vision of community. This may be an important development in network practice and one to assist radical practice...as well as a reason why we are occasionally depleted by text-only communication. I will post later a link to Haraway interview where she talks about making networks now Molly On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kristoffer Gansing wrote: > Dear all, > > Maybe I can take the opportunity to plug in to the running discussions > by shamelessly plugging the announcement of the next transmediale > festival which aims to deal exactly with the topics of networks, as it > appeared here as a recurring common concern. > https://2020.transmediale.de/festival-2020 > > I think its quite interesting how the thread on nettime being in a bad > shape and the one Rachel O' Dwyer started on net-art is converging > around questions that have to do with how the limits of networks have > become more tangible today, technically as well as in the form of > "network idealism". > > Molly Hankwitz wrote: > > > 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... > > Rachel: > > > Can we still speak about ?tactical media? or ?the exploit?, and if not is > > this because > > > > a) network activism has transformed so that these older descriptions no > > longer accurately describe net art and ?hacktivist? practices, or > > > > b) these art practices have stayed much the same, but they are no longer > > effective in the current political and economic context? > > I would not agree with David Garcia that these meta-discussions is a > sign of the decline of nettime however, rather that the discussion of > networked forms seems to be returning at the moment, maybe especially > also on a list like nettime, because it seems as if it disappeared from > the big "digitalisation" debates that are now anyway everywhere. (except > for the breaking up of THE social network) Meanwhile, users are > returning to smaller networked forms in the form of the fediverse or in > other intimate constellations taking their cue from safe spaces and > intersectional practices online, offline or rather in between. Maybe we >
