Re: I farted
On 2018-02-01 11:53, Felix Stalder wrote: This analogy is wrong. Trafalgar not Krojanty. Charge at Krojanty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty .DE vs. .PL killed: 11 vs. 19 - 25 wounded: 9 vs. 40 - 50 Battle of Trafalgar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar .FR&.ES vs. UK casualties & losses: 13.781 vs. 1.666 ships lost: 22 vs. 0 Same up shit creek without a paddle situation is currently unfolding in Austria. # 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: When repression is cheaper than redistribution
hi Keith, remembered this 5min part of an interview with Adam Curtis regarding your question https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-adam-curtis-121216#t=45:45 The question is "Do you really want change or do you want just change things a little bit?" 49:50 "you spot real change, when ..." risk aversion, or the pricetag you might have to pay walter On 2017-09-04 11:18, Keith Hart wrote: Excellent point, Felix and nice riposte, Patrice. Tocqueville, in The Old Regime and the Revolution published just before he died, explained the latter's causes as follows: 1. The spread of Enlightenment ideas of freedom and equality to the masses (birth of the mass media) 2. The rigid system of social stratification (in England any soldier or merchant can become a lord). 3. Economic expansion pushing several classes up against No. 2 4. Repression rather raising the lid of the pressure cooker a bit. One could say that the digital revolution has promoted No. 1 on a global scale, but also their negation. Neoliberalism definitely ended 20th century class mobility (the 1% are increasingly like the 18th century French nobility). Ah, No. 3, sorry folks it's moving in the opposite direction, especially in the West. Not so sure which way No. 4 goes for us: my attitude to surveillance is that I can beat it. I'm faster than they are. The main point, however, to which nettime seems to be immune, is that we (the insular white critics) are not going to be where the action is and don't have a clue about how to hook up with the majority who are already there. Keith On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Patrice Riemens wrote: Well, there is an absurdly simple way to achieve this change of calculus, though a costly one - for us: leave the screens, go down in the street and start getting killed by the riot police, preferably in numbers. No modern 'democratic' dispensation survives that, as Jacques Chirac knew all too well. His successors everywhere might be less smart, but they shall discover soon enough that lethal repression is very costly indeed, as it upsets the cart of the consumption-based economy real bad. Of course when Xi-JinPing marches in, what will happen sooner rather than later, the whole rule-book will change, but in the meanwhile we do have some opportunity to 'change that calculus' ... On 2017-09-04 10:44, Felix Stalder wrote: Recently, the German political scientist Ulrike Guérot argued that digital technologies changed the political calculus of the ruling elites: repression is now seen as cheaper than redistribution to maintain the system. This research, by the Center for Political Studies (CPS), University of Michigan, puts numbers to this claim. Advanced democracies spent just shy of $9 billion to surveil 74% of their population, at a cost of $10/person. Now, this of course are not the entire costs of the apparatus of repression, but just indicates how incredibly cheap surveillance blanket surveillance has become. To gain any traction for political change, we need to change this calculus, by making surveillance and repression expensive again. Felix http://cpsblog.isr.umich.edu/?p=2129 [1] <...> While nations worldwide have spent at least $27.1 billion USD (or $7 per individual) to surveil 4.138 billion individuals (i.e., 73 percent of the world population), stable autocracies are the highest per-capita spenders on mass surveillance. In total, authoritarian regimes have spent $10.967 billion USD to surveil 81 percent of their populations (0.1 billion individuals), even though this sub-set of states tends to have the lowest levels of high-technology capabilities. Stable autocracies have also invested 11-fold more than any other regime-type, by spending $110 USD per individual surveilled, followed second-highest by advanced democracies who have invested $8.909 billion USD in total ($11 USD per individual) covering 0.812 billion individuals (74 percent of their population). In contrast to high-spending dictatorships and democracies, developing and emerging democracies have invested $4.784 billion USD (or $1-2 per individual) for tracking 2.875 billion people (72 percent of their population). It is possible that in a hyper-globalizing environment increasingly characterized by non-state economic (e.g., multi-national corporations) and political (e.g., transnational terror organizations) activity, nation-states have both learned from and mimicked each other’s investments in mass surveillance as an increasingly central activity in exercising power over their polities and jurisdictions. It is also likely that the technological revolution in digitally-enabled big data and cloud computing capabilities as well as the ubiquitous digital wiring of global populations (through mobile telephony and digital communication) have technically enabled states to access and organize population-wide data on their citizens in ways not possible in previous eras. <> # distributed via :
Re: Make Donald Duck Again
> A Chromium addon is in the works. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road to the chrome store that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest! https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/make-donald-duck-again/pkeonejbepmplegbepgiehdaajapopkb # 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: What is the meaning of Trump's
> For a glimpse into the future of "news", take a look at the New Yorker's > portrait of Mike Cernovich: > > http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/trolls-for-trump dear Sebastian, thanks for the link. I just wanted to add that an article about Cernovich without mentioning Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) might be missing some puzzle piece for a glimpse into the future of "campaigning".*) Disclaimer: I'm not supporting their world views, just found the description of techniques and how to spot them sometimes really interesting and spot-on. Adams is his "twitter buddy" and the "softer" version, see his blog http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143164301421/how-powerful-is-persuasion worth looking at it to understand certain techniques. Adams deserves some credit for making reasonable predictions and analyses. Starting September 2015 with "On a scale from 1 to 10, if Steve Jobs was a 10, Trump is a 15." Predicting GOP nomination and and possible win, and how that is even possible. Describing the persuasion stuff imho really well. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129784168866/the-persuasion-reading-list A classic and worth looking 8 minutes video "Linguistic Kill Shots" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4 from Oct. 6th 2015, Adams describing the Trump during the primaries: "You know how the media has made fun of Trump’s 4th-grade-level speech patterns? The joke’s on them. He does it intentionally. Because it works." The reason why I bring this up is that Trump is of course not the only doing this. In Austria presidential candidate Hofer is on the same track, 4th December is the date, last time it was little bit close, we will see how it will go down this time. Also for that upcoming election the quote from Adams fits regarding how things are handled in Austria ... "He is the guy who brought a flamethrower to a stick fight." best regards, walter *) Some stuff we have seen already during the Brexit campaign. Given that the whole political advisor circus takes the "learnings" from the US to Europe over the next years we will have the pleasure to have more trumply and bigly campaigns. (i.e. .AT Lo(w)patka) Further links Here is Cernovich interviewed, imho more "raw and real" than the article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQNP9V0b5IM imagine a potential Trump voter lets say from the Midwest watch that in comparison to reading the article about Cernovich. Scott & Cernovich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH3zOmYDmj0 for German speaking people - Analyse von Norbert Hofer https://cms.falter.at/falter/2016/05/03/norbert-der-profi/ https://cms.falter.at/falter/hofers-spiel-eine-videoserie-ueber-rhetorische-tricks/ Btw. regarding the techniques Cialdini's new book "pre-suasion" is out. nudge, nudge! # 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: BEPS Blues
> BEPS stands for 'Base Erosion and Profit Shifting' BEPS that ... Goodbye Double Irish, Hello Knowledge Box https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-10-15/goodbye-double-irish-hello-knowledge-box after the announcement they will close down the "Double Irish loop" within 6 years ... a timely replacement ‘Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich’ explained http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Double-Irish-With-A-Dutch-Sandwich.html Google accounts show 11 billion euros moved via low tax 'Dutch sandwich' in 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-tax-idUSKCN0VS1GP Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Is Lost to Tax Loopholes http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes 7 Corporate Giants Accused of Evading Billions in Taxes http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/ corporate tax-dodging costs the EU between $54.5 billion and $76.4 billion a year "Revelations of the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals based on exploitation of the arm’s length system prompted a rear-guard action by the OECD described as the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) programme but the programme deliberately avoids any principled re-examination of norms underlying the international tax regime or any consideration of a shift from residence to source-based taxation." The Troubling Role of Tax Treaties, by Kim Brooks (Dalhousie Dalhousie University – Schulich School of Law; Monash University – Faculty of Law; and Richard Krever, Monash University – Department of Business Law & Taxation, July 1, 2015. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2639064 and then my favourite: The Stachanow of Capitalism the only employee (a mere 55.000 Euro annual salary) of ExxonMobil Spain: 9.9 billion Euro in net profits in 2 years http://elpais.com/elpais/2011/02/27/inenglish/1298787648_850210.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3838c38-2398-11e3-98a1-00144feab7de.html#axzz4ED7ox8Xl Google chairman Eric Schmidt is reportedly “very proud” of this. “It’s called capitalism,” he said last year. https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app # 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: what if we were all right but all
On 2015-11-01 17:15, Jaromil wrote: > Instead he described the descent into 'oh dearism', or the posture of > impotently observing one disaster after > another with no idea about how to intervene to end or ameliorate the > situation. to which the only response is to say, "Oh dear" ... Adam Curtis' 5min segment from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe (2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM # 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: Pricing a Protest: Forecasting the Dynamics of Civil
Maybe this is interesting in that context: Social Unrest: Millennial Uprising Scenario 2015 by Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies slides http://www.risk.jbs.cam.ac.uk/news/events/other/downloads/150122_riskbriefing_socialunrestrisk_slides.pdf report http://cambridgeriskframework.com/getdocument/22 Also a few days ago there was the Recorded Future User Network Conference, perhaps Dan Geer can chip in on the latest. >From the department nothing new under the sun: This was from 2012 http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/2012_Recorded_Future_User_Conference back then recordedfuture had interesting webinars on monitoring protest and social unrest, here claiming 85% accuracy for their prediction 2012 https://youtu.be/ffPSocrmfQI?t=213 Monitoring Protests and Unrest - Recorded Future Webcast 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sbny91NjeA Monitoring Social Media Authors 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGMg1jNF3D4 also interesting Quid https://youtu.be/mKZCa_ejbfg?t=890 CEO https://gigaom.com/2013/05/21/the-future-of-propaganda-a-qa-with-sean-gourley-about-big-data-and-the-war-of-ideas/ http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/05/14/152444019/algorithms-the-ever-growing-all-knowing-way-of-the-future and the above mentioned Cytora - Real-Time Political Risk Analysis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJsriO_o_9I Future research projects http://minerva.dtic.mil/funded.html And then there is always enterprise solution Palantir. # 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
