Re: scaling the humiliation
Rampant hypocrisy aside, it's interesting to note that regulating MAGAf would result in the almost exact "chinese" model as it is today. Which may explain the rabid opposition to it from the surveillance-industrial complex. For those that didn't pay attention, what Huawei is accused of was never confirmed, but collusion between Cisco (our "good guys") and the government was confirmed: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.htm https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/21/nsa-technique-for-cisco-spying/ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden The whole thing boils down to data harvesting and channeling rights. Like water rights, they will shape the future. On 2/14/19, 14:21, Roel Roscam Abbing wrote: The global internet is splitting in two. # 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: Catalonia and mainstream opinion
Is there some small country Spain can engage in a war with? That would work for all parties involved. On 10/6/17, 10:08, chml wrote: So...let's say, this is like House of Cards, but real. It's disgusting, but it is like this. This situation led to an unprecedented polarization in wich (like in # 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: The 'Jake' Appelbaum case, or the rise and fall of
The point is that it does take place, and that it places severe
constraints on the organization that suffers from it. Whether the
celeb-status is sought as a reward or loathed does not make any
difference. Celeb-status creates a vulnerable focus point for the
organization.
In today's technical and political circumstances, it's amazing that
makers of anonymity and security systems still group in identifiable
organizations with obvious 'leaders'. There are existing technologies
that can provide collaborative publishing of Tor.
It is becoming obvious (from the recent Fear and Loathing in Tor
Community threads) that knowing someone personally ('trust') means jack
shit.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the
credit." - H. Truman
> Where does this "becoming-celebrity" actually take place, and where is it
> played
> out? I guess it must have something to do with passing a certain threshold of
# 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:
How to Herd your Critics into Fake Communities and Waste their Time
Kudos to JY for discovering this, an unwritten mission statement for nettime :) https://consentfactory.org/2016/05/01/how-to-herd-your-potential-critics-into-fake-communities-and-waste-their-time-part-1/ The full text is included below, without appropriate permissions. Moderators, moderate if you must. - (Part 1) OK, this is one of our absolute favorites here at the Consent Factory. For our money, in terms of distracting and rendering harmless any serious critics of your corporate-controlled global empire, this is definitely one you want to go with. Herding critics into fake communities and wasting their time is not only essential to maintaining your full spectrum dominance of virtually every aspect of people’s lives, but, given the technology available these days, once you get the infrastructure in place, it pretty much runs itself. Now we’ve divided this into three parts, partly to make it easier to follow, but mostly to hook you into coming back to our blog over the next couple weeks to read the second and third installments and increase our click count. In Part One (i.e. this part), we’ll briefly discuss the origins of herding people into fake communities and wasting their time and quickly review why this is an absolutely essential component of any modern capitalist system. Then, in Parts Two and Three, we’ll take a look the two main models that have revolutionized this growing industry during the last twenty years or so: (1) the Social Network; and (2) the Comments Section. So let’s get started … It is generally acknowledged among the disinformation community that herding critics into fake communities and wasting their time became a necessity somewhere around the middle of the 18th Century, as the transition to modern industrial Capitalism was taking place, and the former mostly agrarian workforce was being transformed into an urban industrial workforce, and people were beginning to realize how miserable and pointless their lives were becoming, and how completely exploited and screwed they were. Without getting into all the specifics — which would lead us off on a series of tangents that would get us lost in all kinds of historical and philosophical arguments we don’t want to have to speak to — it is important to note that this transition to industrial Capitalism (whereby the masses of former peasants, artisans, craftspersons, and the like were forced to leave the countryside and move into overcrowded and disease-ridden cities in order to work ten hours a day seven days a week at soul-crushingly monotonous jobs in the factories that were springing up everywhere) was accompanied by a sudden and inexplicable interest among elements of both the intellectual and working classes in certain “socialist” and “democratic” ideas — ideas that would shortly thereafter lead to the formation of the first modern trade unions, and on to Luddism, and Chartism, and Marxism, and ultimately to the scourge of Communism, which President Ronald Reagan finally eradicated at the end of the 20th Century … except for China, which doesn’t really count. But let’s not get side-tracked by the Evil of Communism just yet … the point is, right around the same time that industrial Capitalism begins replacing aristocratic/oligarchical Despotism as the preeminent power structure, and improving everyone’s standard of living by transforming them from de facto agrarian slaves into workers/consumers, the need to start herding certain people into fake communities and wasting their time arises. This is no mere coincidence, of course, but rather, is one of the many structural adjustments required when navigating the transition from a formerly despotic configuration of power to a modern capitalist one. Simply put, once you do away with Despotism (i.e. kill all the kings and queens and their families, and as much of the landed aristocracy as necessary, which you need to do in order to get the whole Capitalism thing going), and adopt all kinds of pseudo-democratic social structures (which you also need to do in order to trick people into believing they’re free) … well, you can’t just beat and murder people into submission anymore (or not on a regular basis anyway). No, you need to start using much subtler means of controlling and manipulating them. Using the Power of the Media to Subtly Manipulate People (which we introduced earlier, and will revisit later) is one of the essential ways to do this; however, given the level of sophistication of the public these days, it is not enough in itself. Unfortunately, no matter how many people your media operatives are able to successfully manipulate, deceive and/or confuse into a state of harmless resignation, there is always going to be a small but significant minority of people who recognize what you’re doing, and feel compelled to point it out to others. These are the potential critics you want to herd into fake communities and waste as much of their time as possible. Now we realize
Re: web networks and the assault on our critical capacities
We can add this (pretty good) description of the dismal state of affairs to the growing collection. The previous ones did not do us much good, but one can always hope. It seems that at the core of these issues are two very different time constants. One is very short, and describes the time between convenient/compliant action and immediate gratification. Ease of login, ease of contact, etc. We are talking seconds here. The other is very long, perhaps on the order of a decade, and relates to the negative effects of the pervasive communication monoculture: loss of individual power, job prospects, cost of living, mating opportunities. It is safe to say that most will never even perceive the existence of the latter relationship, that these negative effects are even caused by something they routinely do today (critical thinking will not be imposed on anyone.) Perhaps a possible way of dealing with this is to shorten the second constant. Instead of begging governments and corporations not to do whatever, the right course of action might be to help them and democratize the abuse, speed it up, make available to everyone, and make the effects obvious. In a way this is already happening by publishing concentrated data caches, but we need much more. # 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: artfcity: Turbulence.org Going Offline
One interesting aspect about stylometry and its counter-measures, is that it appears possible to use counter-measures as the noise channel for steganography. In other words, instead of positioning oneself randomly within the crowd for each text (which is what, for example, Anonymouth does), that positioning may carry the signal. The topic of the text can be used as a key to find related pieces (ie. discussion about Californian Ideology). My wild guess is that, with 100 authors, and (Anonymouth-specific) mapping space resolution, it may be possible to inject 5-10 error-free encrypted message bytes per few kilobytes of text. Because each background of author-space is specific (ie. nettime authors are different from respondents to some blog), detecting this may be harder than detecting image-based steganography. # 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: artfcity: Turbulence.org Going Offline.
My limited exposure to Anonymouth was in 2013 - presentation, brief contact with Rachel Greenstadt, look at the published code, and few experiments. The conclusion was that stylometry works and it is very hard, if not impossible, to counter it without help of machines. Style goes deep. As a trivial example, see the below nonsense and try to guess from which nettime contributor's output was it synthesized. It is obviously true that anonymity implies conformity, and may have long term conforming effects. Even 'going to a crowded public place' carries some conformity with it - one gets to be exposed to people one may not really want to be influenced by, but will, for the sake of anonymity. Using Tor also enforces conformity: going through the moves to install, work around blocks, etc. There is more diversity in the e-mail providers than in the anonymity providers, where the only option is controlled and influenced by a grand total of 4-5 people. I don't think that stylometry counter-measures are any more sinister than these. It's just a technique, like using public WiFi in a cafe, to position oneself in the crowd, a way of How Not to be Seen(tm). The deeper question is: is easy availability of anonymizing technology serving as a neutering agent, providing safe (and ineffective) harbor, so no one has to risk the Blow on the Head, and changing the nature of the discourse for the worse? Probably yes. It's unclear if there are positive long term effects of the easily available anonymity. Which may explain sources of Tor funding. A SAMPLE Like man, wow, good to understand Fascism. At a rediscovery of identity control and the first draft was exemplified by them, and consciously to a few bunch noted last hundred years, in the best title of Deleuze. As the user and thrive through mailing list which is a longish text. But at least near future. That none other culture again, very beautiful dreams of confidence, you have their sociological attempt to the best cases will be called three Crises; is a variety of continental and his article the included. Society. Well, what I the footnotes to the Nineties and so striking and within the part of Facebook the global level! Now everything depends (on what is kind of course The world time people in the central theses of this is on a lot to see one point I a crucial one of dissent in a new inter state I do something very much more widely). That one of flexible accumulation, which refers seem to be a radically journalistic artefact that I the emergent elite of Europe, the Radical times. In a This possibility, Internet merely stands to evolve in Europe, and the ambiguities of any university (but there). It came to increasingly reflect this kind of infrastructure building accompanied by Deleuze. The wings of a regional patchwork the response to have found very essence, or a crucial intervention so as a much more deeply, about the infamous Biennial, this kind of our boys are recounted in the public sectors by a collaborative project together, they have not new: forms and Japan to national culture again, very well what is likely to me define its second section Noughties. Here is in overcoming the use vicariously, through a difference though, from the WikiLeaks Files. For a repeat offender in the really is a global economic crises, is archived, a veritable political economic system. A variety of direct control. Has been an impressive and collaboration? You. Because of the local assertion of the collapse of capture and postindustrial landscapes, or what once a difference though (from the Technopolitics through mailing list wide debates as though from a global populations but in the political engagement that all or at other people's lolcats or war are recounted In June of China have yet to live in the spread of the emergence of neoliberal policies and Seventies and depicts the first parts of Facebook which seemed to others: that great to each other culture was passed on The use vicariously through all on the end of movement of the century makes that I mean of these systems). Aka the antiwar protests to post, do find no website of this leads to think a few years now however. The things I recall, was trying to face to make another Of confidence, you know about, it is. For example all this process, and buried compulsions, but on. Don't am totally ignorant about this obscure marriage of driverless cars through Wired, But a global populations but the contemporary possibilities for Us knowing it. I'm a go at a lot to be not just states and undoubtedly across Europe and in the BRICS expansion: refers seem to know invent, commercialize and deadheads who its counterattack. We've had to coordinate, say all the second part of is a book of resistance in consciously to a collaborative project was a presidential project on a constant stream of chaos which I do I will collaborate. First order cybernetics, in the other culture Cultural
Re: alex van der bellen wins austrian presidentials!!!
These are connected, however unpalatable it sounds. The single prevailing reason for the mass people movements, voluntary or involuntary, in the last few centuries, since governments had solid means of closing the borders, is to lower the local wages and increase profits, thus the local workforce (with decent wages and comfortable middleclass lifestyle) did vanish, but it is a consequence, not the cause. With upcoming automation the population import is becoming a moot point, so the immigration will eventually stop. Industries that are still supporting immigration are the ones on the losing side. On 5/24/16, 0:02, Patrice Riemens wrote: culture". The loss of 'our own culture' is probably a moot point, but the loss of homes and jobs is very real, and massive. It is being deflected into a false concern about immigration and refugees, an issue much less pressing in absolute terms. But as long as 'the establishment' refuses to address substantially the homes and jobs issue, it is complicit, and very directly and deliberatly so, to the raising of false flags by extreme right politicians. # 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: artfcity: Turbulence.org Going Offline
Is there evidence for this? Any existing service where users pay curators for links/search results? On 5/22/16, 23:48, Jaromil wrote: but then why not simply release the archive in a torrent file? nowadays curatorial activities take place also within private trackers and there more people are keen to even payfor it. # 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: Live Your Models
Maybe I'm missing something, but exchanging some gold (or BC) for some oranges or sex does not create a debt relationship. It's unclear how possessing an asset implies debt. Debt can exist without any obvious exchange medium in sight. You can owe somebody oranges, sex, or diamonds. Some of these will depreciate (oranges and sex), some won't. Some debt enforcement modes will require a vig from the debtor, so if you owe 10 oranges today, it will be 20 oranges next month. Or 2000 if you are unlucky. Rotting (inflation) of oranges is of now interest to your creditor, as he will send Cheech to collect. Cheech always delivers. Viewing debt as a currency feature does not make sense, as it misrepresents the social phenomenon as a technical one. Storing and saving value in instruments that local fiefdoms cannot snatch has definite benefits. If the mechanism to move this value is immune to the local fiefdom reach, that also has definite benefits. The argument that this can be used to evade fair (or less fair) taxation is valid and needs addressing. But the argument that inherent non-inflationary nature of the exchange instrument is evil is not. It is naive to assume that "I am lending you 10 BC, and you must repay me 10 BC" is a technical issue; it is not. It's a convenient sleight of hand to automatically ascribe technical features of the currency and crude numbers to the social contract. There is nothing natural or given that the debt of 10 BC today is also debt 10 BC next year. Following that logic, borrowing an acorn requires repayment by 2000lb oak tree in few years. For 10 BC (today) to be equal 10 BC in one year, the creditor needs Cheech. If Cheech works for you, that debt may be equal to 3 BC next year. The BC cat is out of the bag. Sooner or later it will be possible to freely move and hide non-inflationary exchange value, forever, and it's unlikely that anything can stop that. Cash is making a comeback. What is needed are mechanisms to keep the society from devolving into your favorite dystopia, without counting on turning this wheel back. It may mean elaborate non-monetary taxation and eventual abandonment of the very concept of money (after all, Star Trek was based on that.) But stopping the free currency movement and storage is not on the menu. On 5/4/16, 13:55, Florian Cramer wrote: But gold has hardly any intrinsic value - even less so than in the past as it is no longer the best material to fill dental cavities - so it boils down to a token of exchange, and hence for assets and debt. Otherwise, you're just sitting on a pile of metal. # 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: Live Your Models
If the currency is inflationary, then it's useless as a vehicle for savings, leaving only local-force-monopoly-backed notion of "property" as the savings method. If it is not global, it's useless outside the local fiefdom and subject to whims of the local government. The above has been observed in vivo: in pre-fall East Europe (and many other countries today), local currency was good for paying monthly expenses; all savings was in 'hard' currency, although this was frequently illegal. Sometimes the amount of savings was $50, sometimes much more, but it was ubiquitous among the poor and the rich. Good part of population would have a problem with touting inflationary local currency as a cure for neoliberalism. It's not, as 1960s hippie communes were not cure for anything, especially not 'the system'. Debt is a separate phenomenon, and not necessarily related to non-fiat currencies, possession does not automatically imply debt, eg. if I invest my time into digging gold, and find some, who owes me? Debt is predicated on enforcement capabilities, without which it does not exist (without enforcement, there is no debt, but there is gold.) On 5/3/16, 13:31, Florian Cramer wrote: Since mining of Bitcoins is artificially capped (when the predetermined number of Bitcoins has been reached and can no longer be extended), deflation is hard-wired into Bitcoin. If Bitcoin was the global currency, and some people would have assets in Bitcoin while others would have debt in it (since on a macroeconomic scale, every monetary asset of someone is someone else's debt), automatic deflation would mean that the richer get automatically richer while the poorer are drowned in automatically increasing, never repayable debt. # 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: Guardian > Monbiot > Neoliberalism -- the ideology
To enumerate what we know about the unknowable future shifts: 1. The change will not happen by violently interacting with keyboards, touchscreens and displays; 2. The change will not happen by violently interacting with others on the street. What envisionable venues does this leave available? Somebody or something must convince the keepers of the current physicality dynamics (where food, fuel, energy, bullets, chains, sex, etc. go or do not go) to change their ways and have these go somewhere else. Few come to mind: A. Technologically empowered individual (everyone is Batman). One makes robots and drones (or designer viruses or mind control appliances) in the closet (along with required chips, chemicals and enclosures), and these go out to intimidate/eliminate/baptize targets. B. New religion/philosophy/ideology (wetware virus). It's so good, that after few minutes of exposure to it (several kilobytes of text, imagery or few megabytes of video/audio), subjects permanently change their ways and are capable of sustainably converting others. C. Alien intervention. (Mars Attacks!) The current efforts are evenly split between A (hackers, cypherpunk leftovers) and B (tenured scribblers, FSMers and establishment rebels.) C is sadly neglected. On 4/17/16 1:55 , Alexander Bard wrote: Which is why the next revolution will not happen in the streets (we need to get over Paris 1789 and even more so Paris 1968 as our model) both in our minds and our digital environments once this new ideology of digital-global solidarity has become available to us. And to get there we need both technology, ideology and a good dose of destinal luck. A return to the depth of our timeless psyches in the current chaos (humans do not change, technology does, and ideology must change with it). # 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: Guardian > Monbiot > Neoliberalism -- the ideology
The widespread imposed or voluntarily adopted anonymous (or not so anonymous) ideologies, that facilitate the demise of their believers, are hardly a new phenomenon. Expecting that naming them is going to change anything is a fallacy. The current predicament is exactly this - assumption that changing mode of thinking is a way out. Modern rebel economists, activists, whistleblowers, all of them cement this predicament, basically that "the truth will set you free" (and that shit is hardly new - John 8:32). They are starting to sound like freakin' hippies. It doesn't work. We've seen the truth and we are not free. Get over it. Defeating an ideology takes another ideology that produces better weaponry. Historically speaking, the new winner is generally less aesthetically pleasing than the defeated one. Expect nostalgia for neoliberalism. On 4/16/16 17:27 , nettime's_encyclopedist_ wrote: Neoliberalism -- the ideology at the root of all our problems # 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: Review: Michel Bauwens and The Promise Of The
If "community" means 100-200 people, the size of clan/tribe that persisted long enough for brains to get hardwired to it, there is no need for any technology. Everyone knows everything that needs to be known about everyone. Beyond this size, some technology is required, and today that means silicon, transistors, "devices", radios, PHYs, wired/fibered infrastructure. All of this is highly centralized today (there are fewer than 10 semi fabs on the planet that matter, for example.) A clan "owning" this today is a pipe dream. The only realistic direction to re-enable the brain-circuit-friendly community system is to have expertise and means to make chips in every single community. The probability of this happening is kind of low, though. The choices are stark, but that is not rationale to use lipstick on this pig. On 4/13/16, 3:33, Jaromil wrote: There are qualitative solutions to the problem and they cannot be automated, but only aided, adopted, appropriated and run by communities, bottom-up. They are also based on ownership of production means and political decision-making processes that include "workers". # 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: Richard Stallman: Eradicate Facebook!
It is hard on Android and very hard on iOS to have a handset receive unsolicited messages, which is the only way to avoid centralized servers, even the rendezvous-only ones. This is by design. Tor is not the solution because the number of exit nodes is many orders of magnitude lower than the number of popular social operator users, so it is effectively centralized. The solution is not going to be along the lines of some privacy-loving entity setting up a privacy-loving servers and distributing privacy-loving apps - that's the dead end, as we have seen. It is harder - what is needed is ubiquitous serverless p2p connectivity between consumer devices. Very hard (if you think getting out decent crypto is hard, you haven't seen hard.) But it's the only viable direction which is not a total waste of time and a temporary distraction. This is not a new concept - it has already been mentioned that public needs to own and operate the basic infrastructure. The main obstacle is that the current dead-end infrastructure acts as a perfect honeypot and sinks millions of developer-hours. Maybe the way to start dealing with this problem is to tell anyone who designs a new server-assisted app to fuck off. The real solution, as usual, is ideological, and the technology will follow. This is a huge amount of work, uphill and against the wind, and there is no way around it. I think we need distributed social networking, with nodes that act like a Facebook on your own device but only interact through a network of agnostic relays, Tor style, with zero external authorities. Not even "trusted" people running some pods or other overinformed server nodes. That's what I'm working on since 2010. Before that I tried decentralization and federation, but realized that it was a dead-end street. I wished everyone had learned that lesson as me, instead many still preach decentralization and federation. Probably also some lobbyists, since it is the best way to ensure that Facebook and Google aren't challenged at all. # 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: Richard Stallman: Eradicate Facebook!
Open or closed software doesn't make much difference, it's all about data. An operator cannot 'open' data (like in letting everyone know what the data and its derivatives are) without factoring itself out of the business. On the other hand, there are (yet) no signs that consumers will stop feeding operators data in exchange for convenience and simulated intimacy. The situation is somewhat similar to smoking - bad stuff comes after decades, if ever. Perhaps repurposed ads from anti-smoking campaigns may help. Each handset should be labeled in bold type with slogans like "Using this device can damage your employment and health insurance prospects", "Data transferred with this device can turn you into a prosecutable criminal in less than 5 years", "Usage of this phone can raise your mortgage interest" etc. I realize that this is a short interview, but I almost wish Stallman hadn't mentioned free software (his particular obsession, obviously, and a reasonable one), which could overshadow some much more basic concerns with FB. Using proprietary software is one thing--maybe it's inherently evil, maybe not--and collecting data on people's every movement is another. It's conceivable, just slightly, that Facebook could open-source all their software and not change their behavior a bit. If someone really wants to smother you, they can probably smother you with # 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: Richard Stallman: Eradicate Facebook!
Open or closed software doesn't make much difference, it's all about data. An operator cannot 'open' data (like in letting everyone know what the data and its derivatives are) without factoring itself out of the business. On the other hand, there are (yet) no signs that consumers will stop feeding operators data in exchange for convenience and simulated intimacy. The situation is somewhat similar to smoking - bad stuff comes after decades, if ever. Perhaps repurposed ads from anti-smoking campaigns may help. Each handset should be labeled in bold type with slogans like "Using this device can damage your employment and health insurance prospects", "Data transferred with this device can turn you into a prosecutable criminal in less than 5 years", "Usage of this phone can raise your mortgage interest" etc. I realize that this is a short interview, but I almost wish Stallman hadn't mentioned free software (his particular obsession, obviously, and a reasonable one), which could overshadow some much more basic concerns with FB. Using proprietary software is one thing--maybe it's inherently evil, maybe not--and collecting data on people's every movement is another. It's conceivable, just slightly, that Facebook could open-source all their software and not change their behavior a bit. If someone really wants to smother you, they can probably smother you with # 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: Fwd: Re: Shoshana Zuboff > The Secrets of Surveillance
The question is, does it matter at all? The degree of mind-engagement is irrelevant if not properly coupled with feet-engagement. In other words, whatever you do with your fingers touching plastic surfaces and your eyes scanning electronic screens, your brain constructing fantastic models of could-be worlds, regurgitating those worlds with other plastic-touchers, may be a totally irrelevant honey-trap, if it does not result in your feet taking you somewhere and eventually confronting men with guns. And it does not appear to result in that at all. While it may be hard to accept, no one in position of control gives a flying fuck about these ideas - that's why you can do these idea exercises ad nauseam and publish all you want. The feet coupling is lost. The only way to regain such coupling may be a forced abstaining from plastic-touching. At the same time, there is a whole generation of people experimenting with new social values and forms of being together, centering arounf networked collaboration and complex systems thinking, all-based on digital technology but extending from experimentation # 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: To distribute somethings while keeping others central?
It should be noted that blockchain/bitcoin are inherently fascist - they blindly enforce the majority rule. Plus, this majority is not really the majority, as it is represented by less than ten (9, I think) privately operated minting outfits. Technology is the message. What is funny about bitcoin promotion argument though is it is based on Austrian economists' ideology; complaining about the role of state in control of money and corruptness that brought: as if it was not the Wall Street one emerged from very same ideologies that defended private or liberalized financial and monetary policies and 'autonomous polity' from the state?! # 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: High Country News > Hal Herring > Can we make sense
Looks like another in the series of endless surprises that precarity is not just for the poor. Tune in 'first they came for ...', >Can we make sense of the Malheur mess? # 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: notes from the DIEM25 launch
The trend(s) that Europe is seeing itself dragged to are not result of 'wrong' thinking and misbehaviour of supposedly powerful masses. They are the result of material circumstances, and no amount of magical (group)thinking will change that. Material circumstances are mostly related to technologies of social control, and these can not be handled by 'not being afraid' and stampeding, which is what current proposals boil down to. That's like not being afraid of bullets - looks great the first 5 minutes. What can make the difference is (painstakingly slow) acquisition of counter-technologies which can change the landscape of material circumstances and make the change sustainable outside the stampede phase. Privacy technologies are definitely party of this equation. For those that can't jettison the 19th century revolutionary scene from their minds, think meeting on dark street corners. That was a technology. Today's privacy is the same thing, but it looks a bit different and takes far longer to learn, and it has to be done. Nothing will change until the would-be changers stop taking knives to gun fights (hoping that bravery and motivation will compensate - they won't). Privacy technologies, including encryption, are essential part of this armament. Asking people to 'loose their fear' and stampede into the machinegun fire is short-sighted - and today 'we don't care that they know about our moves better than we do' is equivalent of this. Absolutely nothing will change as a result of people gathering and talking themselves into this or that, and then regurgitating it in the social media. The modern society is immune to such knives. The proof is obvious - that event in Berlin was completely legal, as are others of its kind, while encryption is less and less legal. The change may come only from the change in the material circumstances (it's not any more about material circumstances of production these days, as is all done by robots, but use of that phrase may help bridge the cognitive gap.) On 2/13/16 2:29 , Felix Stalder wrote: Here, I really totally disagree. Repressive orders crumble when people start to loose their fear and act in large numbers, despite being monitored not because they found ways to evade it. Security, in this case, comes from social solidarity and collective action, not from technology. I'm not against encryption as such, of course, there are many instances where it is vital, but this is not one of them (unless one follows a kind of Leninist approach). In this case, to focus on encryption seems more like a form of political procrastination. # 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: notes from the DIEM25 launch
> I think you are overrating technologies of control, neither the Stasi > nor the KGB could save their systems from collapse (though the ruined > a lot of lives). I think that the conclusion that nothing really changed and that power grabbing and re-grabbing mechanisms are the same as they were (and will stay the same in indefinite future) is grossly wrong (as is the notion of immutability of 'human nature'.) This school of thought is essentially waiting for the next successful 'organizing of masses and revolt' to make things right again. The organizers have just to say the right words and tweets, publish the right pamphlet, which somehow they missed to figure out so far (in all previous failed revolts), but they will find the magic words eventually, and then the Revolution will happen. It's all about words. It is going to be a long wait, as it's a classic example of Einstein's Insanity. It really depends how you think repression works these days. If you think that it's about repressing particularly dangerous individuals, then both encryption (when they can be dealt with individually) and large numbers (when they cannot be dealt with individually because you cannot imprison, or shoot, a very large number of people) help. If you think repression works by influencing the patterns of how people think (e.g. creating an environment that incentivizes people to put all emphasis on maximizing the number of useless "friends", or competing in a rat race of faking their own happiness), then encryption won't help much, but nothing much will. Neither of the above. Targeted repressing or influencing is not relevant, it's too expensive and ineffective. That's smokescreen and useful for PR. It works by inferring correct forecasts, from exposed communications, about group behaviours, before groups themselves understand them. The rest is easy. The biggest obstacle is that this is hard to understand by those who haven't been exposed to the data. It's not intuitive - it's statistics and number crunching, it's a new phenomenon. The way around is to look for secondary tell-tale signs, for example what's legal and what's illegal, what goes into standards, etc. # 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: It’s Been 20 Years Sinc
Well, it started as elite platform (one needed computer, modem, access, time, IQ), unregulated, then it was commercialized, commoditized, masses came in, and finally it got heavily regulated. Compare with European conquest of North America. Looks like 'space'. On 2/9/16, 11:05, Florian Cramer wrote: What is needed, above all, is a thorough critique and abandonment of the colonialist trope of "cyberspace". # 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: Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the
The capital of the notion of something being 'legal' is wearing thin. It's interesting to observe what will replace it - make no mistake, the working system will pop up, so that the business can go on, and it won't be something simple as ad-hoc brute force threats. I guess that a well-defined (possibly overlapping) power-legal domains will emerge, so it will be clear to all involved what it exactly means when principality X says, for example, "this will be the taxation rate for these activities". Depending on the coverage of X's domain, this may mean that you don't care, or that you will implement it ASAP. We need some kind of more accurate domain-dependent rules, in order to predict and plan. Concepts of nation-states, national sovereignty and 'international law' are not applicable tools any more. Invoking them is pointless, as they cannot be enforced (the purpose of such invocations is to 'show the people' how badly these concepts are violated in hope of creating outrage and restoring them, but that doesn't work any more, as people know well it's all bs.) We are already seeing de facto emergence of these new legal domains. Now we need the code. The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding # 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: de Jong, Lovink, and Riemens: 10 Bitcoin Myths #ANON
Here ( https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7 ) is a proper requiem for Bitcoin, written by the insider: ... Why has Bitcoin failed? It has failed because the community has failed. What was meant to be a new, decentralized form of money that lacked “systemically important institutions” and “too big to fail” has become something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a handful of people. Worse still, the network is on the brink of technical collapse. The mechanisms that should have prevented this outcome have broken down, and as a result there’s no longer much reason to think Bitcoin can actually be better than the existing financial system. ... > Bitcoin mining is currently reduced to less than 10 operators. There is > relatively small number of people involved, and none of these seem to have a > standing army or a navy. How much would it cost to coerce/subvert 51% of these # 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: aaaaarg lawsuit digest #ANON
So you will keep and feed your own poet in your basement? Or is he going to be paid by the enlightened government? Or we'll just have to do with: - the already existing poetry? - bad poetry by Uber drivers written in their spare time? - free propaganda poetry funded by various parties? Pick one. I genuinely hope so. All IP regimes must be abolished, including the quaint small merchant. # 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: aaaaarg lawsuit digest #ANON
This reminds of sentiments of small software publishers in the 90s (but they used to express themselves in more colorful ways.) Ease of copying killed the cottage software industry (only the big 5 survived), and it's only now slightly recovering due to proprietary appstore/device platforms. Publishing books/texts is somewhat similar, except for the fact that the final product runs on any human, not just the two proprietary device platforms, so it's much easier to propagate. The end game for small publishers (no lawyer budget) is bleak - the money comes from two categories: readers who prefer paper, and readers who really, really want to pay. The upside is that there is the paper option, which software publishers never had. >I've got a new little book about Hillary Clinton and it's already up on >arg, or however many fucking a's it requires. I'm a writer and I >hope to get paid for my work. It's how I pay my bills. "Small authors" >aren't exactly thriving and this isn't helping. So fuck this piratic # 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: introducing @nettime_bot
Would it be possible, for those who don't want their names ending on TWTR disks, to have a Subject: tag that bypasses the bot - for example "MO:" (mail only), like in: MO: Re: introducing @nettime_bot Alternative to the full bypass would be omitting [Sender] field. --- The idea of opening nettime to new audiences is good, but are microblogging/social behemoths really the techno-ideological equivalents to the early e-mail? It was relatively hard, with distributed ownership, and free-form (which mandated some basic cognitive skills.) Perhaps running a hidden Tor service would be more instrumental in this regard. The use is hard (need to download Tor client and type .onion address), the infrastructure is distributed, and there is underground flair. On 12/28/15 9:58 , nettime mod squad wrote: Hi, nettimers -- The mod squad elves have been hard at work upgrading nettime's so-called infrastructure. (1) Nettime has a shiny new twitter bot: @nettime_bot. (2) It reports each new mail in a simple format: <#nettime> [Subject] | by [Sender] [URL] # 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
Re: Jason Scott > FaceFacts
This is obviously an engineered backlash on the pot culture, as THC makes you lose short term memories and dissolves the Now. I wonder what happens to Facebook products when they get high on pot ... what's left? On 12/24/15 10:12 , nettime's_about_face wrote: and negotiate it for search and topic control and usefulness. No. Not happening. Everything on Facebook is Now. Nothing, and I mean nothing on Facebook is Then. Or even last month. # 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
Re: Vice > Peter Sunde > I Have Given Up
Equating 'freedom' with 'right' to consume unpaid commercial content was the biggest meme hijack of the decade. It reminds of the sinister side of some hippie communities, where 'free love' was used to excuse rape. The worst part is that 'free' re-distribution of the commercial content causes exposure to trash of those who could not afford to pay for it, and would otherwise be spared. On 12/12/15 0:41 , nettime's_checkered_flag wrote: "The internet is shit today. It's broken. It was probably always broken, but it's worse than ever." # 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
Re: de Jong, Lovink, and Riemens: 10 Bitcoin
[2/x This message should not go out to the nettime-l list, but if it does we apologize. We're troubleshooting an issue that affects morlock's outgoing emails. -- mod (tb)] This concern also applies to other lowly workers in data mining industries (which is really the only thing going on in data centers today.) Colocations (one 'l') are cold, noisy, often locked down to the point where one needs an escort to go pee, there are surveillance cameras all around the place, you are lucky if you can find a broken chair, and there are no girls. On 11/30/15, 13:09, John Hopkins wrote: This info from the morlock & elloi and the previous poster raised the question in my mind -- a question that is *not* facetious -- of the conditions that Bitcoin miners are working under. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: de Jong, Lovink, and Riemens: 10 Bitcoin
This concern also applies to other lowly workers in data mining industries (which is really the only thing going on in data centers today.) Colocations (one 'l') are cold, noisy, often locked down to the point where one needs an escort to go pee, there are surveillance cameras all around the place, you are lucky if you can find a broken chair, and there are no girls. On 11/30/15, 13:09, John Hopkins wrote: This info from the morlock & elloi and the previous poster raised the question in my mind -- a question that is *not* facetious -- of the conditions that Bitcoin miners are working under. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: de Jong, Lovink, and Riemens: 10 Bitcoin Myths
Compared to the trust in traditional currencies, the trust in Bitcoin is in the fanaticism end of the scale, due to the simple math - how much does it cost to subvert a currency: Traditional currencies, operated by the state-size actors, lose value when the state's economy and the state itself collapse. Why this happens is a different topic, but there almost always major losers, who invest a lot to prevent this from happening. There can also be major winners (ie. invading army) who invest a lot to make this happen. What is are the baseline amounts involved in these investments? Most likely not less than several hundreds of $MM. Bitcoin mining is currently reduced to less than 10 operators. There is relatively small number of people involved, and none of these seem to have a standing army or a navy. How much would it cost to coerce/subvert 51% of these and do anything with Bitcoin (split hash trees into oblivion, etc. etc.)? At worse few $MM, if really expensive first-class thugs are hired. This is completely different situation from the early days of Bitcoin, when there were thousands of miners, and the cost of obtaining control over 51% of those was much closer to the cost of subverting state-run currency. On 11/30/15, 11:06, nettime's_forgotten_password wrote: 4. "Bitcoin is not a fiat currency." In practice, acceptance of Bitcoin payments takes place before the (irrevocable) recording of the transaction in the distributed database. That is, without formal confirmation of its validity. Apparently, the parties involved in payments in bitcoins_believe_ in their eventual recording. The payee therefore trusts the_eventual_ availability of received funds. This looks distinctly similar to the way traditional instruments of payments, such as coins, banknotes and bank transfers, operate. The users trust, based on experience and social convention, the correct operation of the system such that received funds are available for further spending. This 'systemic trust' in traditional, fiat, currency is underpinned by a mix of technical features such as hard to copy bank notes, fraud detection software in financial institutions and government imposed and enforced regulations. Conclusion: Where in practice the 'systemic trust' in Bitcoin is no different from that of traditional currencies, Bitcoin operates _de facto_ as a fiat currency. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: what if we were all right but all wrong?
IaaS indeed. Technology is the cause of everything, ideology is there to explain it. By 'technology' I didn't really mean things that happened in the last 10-20 years. The only recent developments of significance are establishment of vigorous keyboard punching as effective honeytrap for neutering activism, and skyrocketing of compartmentalized identity politics due to global networking, so weirdos can now find self-similar in faraway lands ... like nettime. By technology I meant the means of securing the top few hundred places in the global public person-space which imprints itself onto the multitudes every hour of the day. It used to be a national phenomenon but today it's global. This was well understood in the early 20th century. I am not anthropologist, but it's fairly accepted that one can 'know' about 200 people, and that those 'neighbors' will shape the life and actions of the average human. This is the whole point of branding and celebrity - getting into that set. If the change is to come through voting (1 body = 1 vote, ie. 'democracy'), then such change has to be broadcast from this Fortune 200 club. The only way to get in that club is to have considerable power, because the competition is fierce and well-armed. The means of being widely heard are very physical and controlled: EM spectrum, billboard space, print space. Getting a meaningful fraction of any of these is very expensive. The 'truthiness' of what have to say is irrelevant, and will not supplement your lack of the broadcast power. Unless there is a tectonic shift where dinosaurs are slow to react (but let's be real, the Internet wasn't it - that space was re-conquered after only few years ... good few years, though.) Is there a hope, beyond activism as a lifestyle/hobby? Yes: tectonic shifts. They won't come from ideology, but from technology, so don't follow prophets, follow nerds without cellphones. Alex' text is pointing to the very tactical understanding of ideologies that you are mentioning and a process of appropriation for a new sort of... service. Sure, technology-based mass manipulation services. Does that rings a bell? Beyond seeing just the opportunity for 'manipulation' in there, a lot of what is going on into the participatory democracy scene, a lot of the prismatic transformation of old party duopolies, can fit into this vision. That's what your provocation makes me imagine... we may call it Politics as a Service perhaps, or PaaS if it's not already taken. Ideology as a Service may also fit, IaaS. So funny that it sounds almost like 'jacket' in Dutch, jaas. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: Welcome to the Internet - if you've missed the past
IPv4 is here to stay. The first consumer that gets IPv6-only line from ISP will find out that he/she cannot visit sites that did not convert to IPv6, and that would be the end of business for that ISP. This means that all servers that this consumer needs will have to convert *first* to IPv6, and there is little incentive for them to do so - there are more than enough IPv4 addresses for server colocations. Just got few hundred with no questions asked. After they have, in despair, removed most of these features and made IPv6 look and work almost exactly like IPv4, the same Internet community that previously told them that IPv6 changed too many things began complaining that the IPv6 protocol is insufficiently revolutionary and does not address some of the core challenges which would justify the large expense of a transition. Unfortunately, by that time IPv4 addresses largely ran out and a transition was necessary anyway. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: What Happens Next Will Amaze You
It's all about the economy, stupid, and the end game is straightforward: 1. All databases will be public When there is more than N records on one machine, and the cost of a breach is less than the value of each record times N, then records will grow legs. Looking at pricing trends for 0days and 'security solutions', for records containing peoples names in the near future N will become less than 1000. Therefore, all databases will be public, eventually. 2. Privacy will become common sense When all databases with > N records are public, one will communicate details that should not be public only in ways that do not touch disks with more than N records - which means strongly protected P2P communications, from whispering to encryption. Obviously, the proper course of action is to accelerate data collection. # 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
***SPAM*** Re: VW
Consumers have been at the mercy of technology vendors for a long time.
The novelty here is that it is the government that found itself in the
subordinate role.
The lowdown is that the technology one doesn't fully understand and have
full transparency into ("user") can and will screw you, and no amount of
regulations can change that. Anything with software is especially
insidious in this sense, as for most users it is impossible to fully
grasp it.
The upside is that this enables multiple centers of power (from startups
to VW), so in a way we are entering the age of pre-feudal fiefdoms.
Whether the government model will prevail or not depends on how much
power the illiterates have. I wouldn't hold my breath.
On 9/25/15, 12:01, t byfield wrote:
A few thoughts about the VW scandal
<...>
# 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 ***SPAM*** Re: Lori Emerson: What's Wrong With the Internet and How
I was present when people with pointy ears entered IETF meetings and ordered this. Is this the answer you expect? Perhaps search engines can provide better answers. Worth trying: ex. http://www.quora.com/Why-is-ADSL-asymmetric Without getting in codecs and frequency allocations, consider that there are perfectly functioning symmetric variants of DSL (SDSL etc.) The underlying narrative is that there is more download than upload, which then, combined with NATs, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before DSL, we had modems for analog audio lines, and they were fully symmetric. To dig out the chain of causality, one would need to track where this narrative originated in 90s, and how it found its way into the standards bodies, and why ISPs preferred ADSL to SDSL. All in 90s, it was too late after that. It may well be true that most people really have nothing to say and create, so asymmetry makes sense, as they just need to be fed. But neglecting social consequences and amplifying this situation with technology *is* a political decision. Most people don't vote - does it mean that the number of voting booths should be cut down? On 7/28/15, 2:56, Iain Boal wrote: So there was a purely political decision to build in the asymmetries. Can you corroborate, beyond the mere assertion? Who? When? Evidence welcome. IB # 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 ***SPAM*** Re: Hacked Team
Exonerating makers of malicious tools because they did it only for the irresistible appeal of money (as opposed to being inherently evil and wanted to screw activists) is ridiculous. They knew exactly what they were doing. Just following orders is not a valid defense, for some time now. Eventually, it will come to those just following orders, programmers and engineers, enabling efficient population control, and doing it just for $100K+ salaries and stock options. It always does. I say this because I believe that HT would have never become what it was and would have never sold to the regimes it sold to without the partnership of *very big* business players, whom I believe are the main # 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 ***SPAM*** Re: Europe: from bad to worse
Isn't the biggest fear of all that it won't, and that Greece and Greek will continue to exist in relative order? To ensure that such catastrophe does not happen, chaos must be created by any means. On 6/28/15 1:06 , Felix Stalder wrote: If Greece is being pushed into the wilderness outside the Eurozone, it's likely to create economic and social chaos domestically. While # 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 ***SPAM*** Re: nottime: the end of nettime
To state the obvious, non-commercial and detached moderation is valuable and sought after, and cannot be bought. The reward chain is obviously broken, as all moderators get is some amount of unsaid appreciation from several hundred people around the world. I guess it may feel unreal - nothing in the physical domain - no drinks, promotions, tenures, sex, or even mention of the topic (I mean nettime). The real question is how to repair the reward chain and make the process sustainable? The machine-mediated real world will not let anything through, except cash. # 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
Re: nettime Photography and repetiion
One of definitions of kitsch is that it shifts the focus from the object to both the subject and subject's peers. Emotions are triggered because it's so nice to have those emotions, and because it's so nice to have the same emotions others will also have - fuzzy ad nauseam. The object itself is relevant only to the point of being easily emotionally interpreted, including imbeciles. The automation of 'social' interactions amplifies kitsch by orders of magnitude, leaving no emotional space for anything else. But there are upsides: - It's now easy to determine, algorithmically via big data, what is not kitsch: the search returns no results. - Authors motivated by recognition are being weeded out, as they stand no chance against the Big Amplifier. On 3/27/15 16:48 , daniel rubinstein wrote: How many times was it liked, shared and re-twited? # 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
Re: nettime The Greek elections?
Look what you've done - now everyone is going to try this! On 2/5/15, 12:47, Flick Harrison wrote: money taken from the mouths of babes # 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
Re: nettime Hackers can't solve Surveillance
This is exactly the issue - the (assumed) need for interpretation. If there is a small number of potential interpreters who really understand issues (1 in 1000?), and even smaller number among those who are willing to interpret to the public for altruistic reasons (1 in 1,000,000?), then it is trivial to hijack the interpreted message and drawn it into whatever narrative the highest bidder needs, which is what is going on today. I think that there may be a critical fraction value (CFV), the number of people who understand some issue, and if that number is above CVF, then the population cannot be easily manipulated by the bandwidth owners. Looking at the past, I'll make a wild guess that CVF is somewhere around 2-5%. Getting this number up, closer to CVF, is generally termed 'education'. Regarding crypto and the information hygiene, I think that we are currently far below CVF. If you start from the assumption that this cannot be fixed, then there is no hope. On 1/4/15, 10:45, John Hopkins wrote: particular technological concept is any solution -- I think more principled understandings that are not so difficult to grasp, when presented in the right way, can address this problem. Given that the tech is predicated on systems theory -- perhaps some critical systems thinking could go a long way in allowing people to understand many of the power relationships that are operational in the present situation. # 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
Re: nettime Hackers can't solve Surveillance
The nature of political challenges has changed *due* to the technology, and there is no way to enroll the unwashed into the action without understanding the said technology. In 19th and 20th century it was relatively easy to explain issues and causes - the rich get all the pussy and power, while we work long hours for nothing. Cue in the Capital, means of production, etc. Today, to get political traction on this issue, one needs to explain (a) long term consequences of the loss of privacy by (b) complex technical means. It's not going to happen unless you essentially teach the population to do crypto themselves, without benevolent or malevolent elites. You will not get real political traction on blind faith (something elite hackers tell us to do.) You cannot substitute real political engagement by religion, which this trust us, we're the good guys approach boils down to. So it is back to the technology, and deep understanding by pretty much everyone. There are no shortcuts, and no amount of 20th century politics will solve this. That's the real challenge - education, and it looks like a lost cause. The unwashed are dumb, and the smart ones are well paid. On 1/2/15 18:11 , Dmytri Kleiner wrote: mass communications. In order to achieve a society where we can expect privacy we need more hackers and hackerspaces to embrace the broader political challenges of building a more equal society. # 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
Re: nettime The Creative Question--Nine Theses
The main cognitive dissonance here is in the (implied) claim that creativity should be rewarded by the prevailing (capitalist) system currencies. Remove that requirement, and suddenly everything works like a charm ! On 11/19/14, 22:46, Geert Lovink wrote: artists can only participate if they reinvent themselves and morph into another role. 5. There is no Creative Ecology Creative industries policy started with the ambition of setting up creative ecologies where ideas and innovation can be born, mature and thrive. # 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
Re: nettime FW: Blogpost: Smart Cities vs. Smart Communities: Enabling
The problem is more fundamental, but was encountered before: literacy. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png - we're somewhere in the computer literacy where France was in the traditional literacy in early 1700s. And it will probably take us as long to get out of this. Higher literacy rates were not accomplished by fancier tools (pens and paper), but by slow and painstaking education. Fancier tools won't accomplish much - that's one of the most damaging myths around computer literacy. Computer literacy is not something you can give to someone. So if you think that you have a solution that will arm illiterates against the organized literates in few years, you don't have anything, except maybe a hobby. On 11/7/14 9:02 , Mark Simpkins wrote: Thanks for posting this, I have been trying to use the idea of the 'smart-er citizen', but this is really an analogue to the community level thinking that you mention. Rather than encourage the use of top down technology/control systems that are sold by the big technology players I have been focusing on the cataloguing and findability of existing techniques and tools for citizens to get together and decide on how to develop and improve their community. In a way developing a Smarter Citizens Catalogue - access to existing tools and methods. # 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
Re: nettime tensions? elites? governance?
This is not a change in the production pipeline - the product was always the same. The change is in the demand - the herd of independent thinkers is no longer being *paid* for the product (through tenures, foundations, royalties), as that particular venting method became obsolete. There are cheaper ways for social control, and anyway the population has been dumbed down to the level where they don't really get much of it. It's all about the economy. Lefties lost their lefty jobs. that all we -- lefty artist/intellectuals on this list -- manage to produce is a cynicism and bickering. And, that the discussion is 'stale.' Yes, to say the least. Gentrification is talked about in the # 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
Re: nettime Gentrification - or a focus on income and wealth?
We should not. The average nettimer earns 3x more than the average SF evictee, and we like it that way. Now back to the noble cause of helping the poor ... Should we not be more concerned with the classic issues of wealth and income distribution and Piketty's extremely vaiid point that Europe # 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
Re: nettime do you know the way to san jose digest [x3: hankwitz
This is a slippery slope. What is natural about diversity, or letting the poor live? Nothing natural about capitalism! # 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 Survey
Just doing a survey on a startup idea: Would you use a free condom with BT IPV6 address ? Totally free. On 3/25/14 19:58 , John Hopkins wrote: http://tinyurl.com/l5vcnp7 and http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175822/ Finally somebody makes a public argument against the breathless Red Herring Utopian hype around IoT and its purported deep and beneficent innocence. Back in the 90s, there was the same level of hype around the Web in general, and we got the NSA. Imagine what IoT will bring us. The ACLU makes a powerful argument to where we *don't* want to end up, given the level of technological sophistication and data agglomeration we, under this globalized techno-social regime, are converging on... Cheers. jh # 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
Re: nettime an historic retreat
This seems like beneficial evolution from central authority to multiple authorities, and in the future probably to the truly decentralized personal level, as technology advancements begin to support smaller entities controlling their own namespaces and the routing. The Internet was never like broadcast ether, it was just presented that way. Imagine if the air was subject to the mechanics of the Internet: you talk to several people in the room, but some can't hear you, because the air operator didn't feel like it. You act surprised, indignated, and then you complain to the government. All because of your own ignorance about how the air works, and your own gullibility to buy into the air marketing. Internet is not like air, and will never be. Decentralization is a good thing, and the sooner the public perception of the Internet gets closer to reality, the better. Of course, the newly empowered fiefdoms will never agree to further delegate the authority to their subjects, but it will happen to them as it happened to ICANN. Expect to see the exodus of Internet luminaries parasiting on the current centralized system into new subdomains. That's where the money is. take place in a manner which would Support and enhance the multistakeholder model. This should be seen in the context of the USG's statement to the # 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
Re: nettime irreversible digest [x3: newmedia, hankwitz, hopkins]
I find this crass anthropocentric approach to be unworthy of this list. These chauvinists draw an arbitrary line in the past when the air was good and water unpolluted, and then scream about pollution and exhaustion of the natural resources. What a BS. I didn't notice any matter destroyed in the process. Why not go few billion years ago and blame Cyanobacteria for the mindless polluting of the planet's atmosphere with free O2 and thus obliterating thousands of species of progressive peace-loving anaerobic organisms? Talk about genocide. And why Cyanobacteria did it? They liked binary fission and kept doing it until it was too late. We have evolved in this poisonous atmosphere, and it's only natural to start another pollution cycle. It's not the end of the world. # 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 Attack on homoentropy [Re: Ippolita Collective, In the
One of the hardest things with machines is to generate sufficient unpredictability, to create good encryption keys or quality simulations. Randomness is hard to come by, for computers. Usually this is done by listening to the supposed outside world, network interrupts, A/D noise, disk seek times, keyboard and mouse input. If you are lucky you'll get 5-10 high entropy bits per second. And then there are successful attacks by flooding the machine with the input which is known to the attacker and not random at all. The computer then becomes predictable, the simulations take the same sequence, and keys can be guessed. The intended analogy is, of course, the quality time alone, where one can tap into thermal noise of synapses, or that flu virus screwing with your immune system, to generate new snippets of thoughts that the outside world simply cannot predict. Lowering the entropy of humans will have interesting consequences. Perhaps the class division in the future will be more accurately described by the person's entropy than by income numbers. There will be gigabyters on one side and two-bitters on the other. Guess which will you be able to outguess. others. The risk is very high that massive partaking in life on social network won't lead to 'collective authorship', but to a buzz-swarm of totally superficial interactions. As Michel de Certeau has convincigly argued [15] it is time, and time only, which makes it possible to shape the everyday world 'below'. When one does not have a place of one's own, one acts on someone else's territory; if one is unable to put a strategy in practice, one can resort to tactics. In theory, personal time can therefore be used to build up significant relationships, also within heteronymous contexts as are social networks, whose rules are not # 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
Re: nettime Torygraph: The Snowden privacy panic has spread to
This is not the problem, but it would be interesting to see who is behind declaring this to be a problem (or perhaps journalistic incompetence is indistinguishable from malice). A cursory search on de-identifying will provide insights about technologies that have been around and have been used for a while (more than a decade) to deal exactly with these issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-identification http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/De-identification/guidance.html http://www.bumc.bu.edu/hipaa/de-identified/ On 2/8/14 8:26 , nettime's_institutional_review_board wrote: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/marthagilltech/100012335/the-snowden-privacy-panic-has-spread-to-medical-research-this-is-a-problem/ The Snowden privacy panic has spread to medical research. This is a problem ... # 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
Re: nettime The Californian Reality (from: New Geography)
Where is the evidence that the present situation is not stable? The caste systems - and we do live in one - have been known to endure for centuries (compared to them, egalitarian societies are ephemeral flashes.) The steep pyramid of ruling class/praetorian guard/token citizenry/rabble appears to be rather resilient. The talent percolates up, performs its duty, and then sinks down, like bubbles in the glass of cold Guinness. Let's make a website initiatives notwithstanding, there is nothing on the horizon of reality that can disturb the ale. It's hard to see anything short of serious genetic engineering that would make egalitarian societies persist, and genetic engineers are not paid to work on that. On 1/22/14 16:03 , Brian Holmes wrote: I think the keyword of systemic change already exists: political ecology. There are many people working in that direction. But the # 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
Re: nettime Harassing People for Watching a Movie in a Cinema
Maybe we should look at the demand side for answers. This recruitment of gargoyles could be another attempt to create content surrogates. Looks similar to taping of video game walkthroughs, where hapless game consumers are compelled to record their 'experiences' and show them to the world. Whatever method can create apparently moving images, enlarging the body of search engines' finds, is justified. Perhaps there is nothing sinister here - the search engine industry is just trying to remain relevant by enabling fresh discoveries of useless bits, and the big data scam is a benign side effect. As long as the public keeps 'searching' the business will prosper. On 1/23/14 11:20 , Flick Harrison wrote: Prescription google glass? Talk about a wanker. Perhaps even a livestreaming wanker. # 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
Re: nettime John Naughton: Edward Snowden: public indifference
The real problem is quantifying the consequences, the danger and negative outcomes of the surveillance. Why is surveillance bad? How does it affect one's life in unambiguous terms? What really happens to the victims of surveillance? Do they get less income/benefits in the future? Do they buy more of the shit they don't need? Do they get less influence in the society? How is this quantified beyond generalities? There are examples where mass education worked, which illustrate the hardness of the problem - like smoking, or relationship of microbes to infections. Smoke and you may get serious health problems in 15-20 years. Rather obvious, but it took several decades and billions of dollars of concerted government and non-government efforts to make some impact. Or when Pasteur demonstrated benefits of sterilization, it still took quite some time for everyone to get it, although the incentive was rather obvious. Where is such incentive regarding surveillance? That your folks will be doomed to remain lower class? That the state will become too strong? Good luck explaining that with measurable effects. The only way the surveillance can be tamed is if basic measures are widely and sustainably adopted by individuals, like elementary hygiene - washing hands and not eating from the garbage. Sustainably means that it does not depend on 10 or 1000 open source developers. This requires wide acquisition of technical skills, which is simply not going to happen in the today's society without demonstrating clear and present danger. No one will wash your hands for you. Is there a real technical reason to have the kind of private centralized electronic communication spaces on the WWW that have been carved out of the decentralized and public internet by 'industry'. No, not really, I think. But, do we see the 'professional peers' or academics (who previously built the internet up and until the web) stepping up? Not really. What's more is, the people who really need to keep their data or conversations a secret from the US government - I don't know say Angela Merkel, drug dealers, paedophiles, journalists, activists, etc - should learn to use the existing tools to do so. The smart ones do already. But, do we see normal users turning to the existing alternative communication spaces and tools (that are often less-convenient or require more of users)? No, not really. # 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
Re: nettime Pascal Zachary: Rules for the Digital Panopticon (IEEE)
This realization per se is pretty much useless, as are endless ruminations regarding how free we were, once upon time. The old Marxist postulate that awareness will save the species is blatantly false - look around you. These technologies came to rule the world because their proponents made coherent efforts to make it so. The only way to do something about it is to actively develop other technologies which tilt the balance in the direction you like better. Countering technology with words, laws and general awareness will get you nowhere. See 'bronze age'. The corollary is that the future belongs to the few, not to the masses, because high tech is centralized by nature, as it requires understanding, and those capabilities are scarce. The rest are fucked ... I mean 'users'. There are only competing elites. NSA at all. It is about the dawning realization that we all now live inside a virtual system that compels us to *control* ourselves, since all the details of our lives are being remembered, in a way that no *human* civilization has EVER even imagined it could do! # 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
