Re: Librarian Schipwreck: Imagine the End of Facebook
"All Meta Vice-Presidents shall henceforth be known as Meta-Barons." (Yann LeCun) " All Meta users shall henceforth be known as #metahamster(s) " (Me) https://www.facebook.com/yann.lecun/posts/10157964859597143?comment_id=10157965657937143 Olivier Auber Le sam. 30 oct. 2021 à 08:37, patrice riemens a écrit : > Aloha, > > (original to: > > https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2021/10/07/imagine-the-end-of-facebook/) > > > The Wired article that triggered me into looking for, and now 'filtering' > this one is here: > > https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-whistleblower-wont-change-anything/ > > > Imagine the End of Facebook > > “On the one hand the computer makes it possible in principle to live in a > world of plenty for everyone, on the other hand we are well on our way to > using it to create a world of suffering and chaos.” – Joseph Weizenbaum > (1980) > > > > It is easier to imagine Facebook causing the end of the world than it is > to imagine the end of Facebook. > > In the wake of another series of damning revelations about Facebook, > failures that saw the company’s various apps go down for much of a day, and > widely covered Senate testimony from a whistle-blower—we find ourselves in > the same position regarding Facebook we have been in for some time. On the > one hand, it has become undeniable that something must be done; on the > other hand, most in a position to really do “something” seem rather > unwilling to do much more beyond making vague gestures in the direction of > oversight. And based on the PR strategy with which Facebook has responded > to its latest cascade of debacles, it seems that Facebook is pretty > confident that it’s not going to face much worse than some bad press and > maybe a mild slap on the wrist. > > There are certainly some who are looking at the events of the last few > days and predicting that these are the events that will finally trigger > some manner of real crackdown on Facebook. Yet, we should not pretend as if > this is the first time that Facebook has found itself in such serious > trouble. And we should not act as if this is the first time that it has > seemed obvious that Facebook’s misdeeds will result in some kind of real > response. People have been saying “delete Facebook” for years, reporters > have been writing damning stories about Facebook for years, Facebook’s > representatives have been embarrassing themselves in front of government > bodies for years, and we have known that something needs to be done to rein > in Facebook for years. To be clear, there was a long period (most of > Facebook’s history prior to 2016) when Facebook was largely fawned over by > much of the press, the political establishment, and many academics/thinkers > who should have known better—but we no longer see Zuckerberg as the kindly > inventor of a wonderful new thing, rather he is now seen as the hubristic > creator of a monster that he has uncaringly set loose to prey upon the > public. > > Despite the fact that Facebook literally stopped working for much of a > day, we increasingly find ourselves in a situation wherein we have to > balance two things: it has become extremely clear that many of us (indeed, > entire societies) are heavily reliant on Facebook, and at the same time it > is clear that Facebook is exactly the sort of company that we should not be > relying on. It is fun to fantasize about Facebook suddenly disappearing, > but if Facebook were to suddenly disappear it would have a significantly > negative impact on many people’s lives; and those who might be most heavily > impacted are not Facebook’s aggrieved users in the United States, but those > in parts of the world for whom WhatsApp has become an essential means of > communication. > > It is easier to imagine Facebook causing the end of the world than it is > to imagine the end of Facebook—and this is because we have grown accustomed > to a steady deluge of stories about how Facebook is screwing up the world, > while at the same time Facebook has become one of the defining features of > “the world as we know it.” Thus, if we want to get to where we want to go > (a society in which Facebook’s power has been significantly curtailed if > not completely dismantled), it is worth considering where we are now. > > > > Do not expect those who got us into this mess to get us out of it > > The Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, deserves ample credit for > coming forward. It takes genuine courage to do what Haugen did, and she > should be applauded for it. Nevertheless, beyond damning accusations that > Facebook knows exactly what it’s doing and is doing it anyways, it is still > worth considering other parts of Haugen’
Librarian Schipwreck: Imagine the End of Facebook
Aloha, (original to: https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2021/10/07/imagine-the-end-of-facebook/) The Wired article that triggered me into looking for, and now 'filtering' this one is here: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-whistleblower-wont-change-anything/ Imagine the End of Facebook > “On the one hand the computer makes it possible in principle to live in a > world of plenty for everyone, on the other hand we are well on our way to > using it to create a world of suffering and chaos.” – Joseph Weizenbaum (1980) > > It is easier to imagine Facebook causing the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of Facebook. In the wake of another series of damning revelations about Facebook, failures that saw the company’s various apps go down for much of a day, and widely covered Senate testimony from a whistle-blower—we find ourselves in the same position regarding Facebook we have been in for some time. On the one hand, it has become undeniable that something must be done; on the other hand, most in a position to really do “something” seem rather unwilling to do much more beyond making vague gestures in the direction of oversight. And based on the PR strategy with which Facebook has responded to its latest cascade of debacles, it seems that Facebook is pretty confident that it’s not going to face much worse than some bad press and maybe a mild slap on the wrist. There are certainly some who are looking at the events of the last few days and predicting that these are the events that will finally trigger some manner of real crackdown on Facebook. Yet, we should not pretend as if this is the first time that Facebook has found itself in such serious trouble. And we should not act as if this is the first time that it has seemed obvious that Facebook’s misdeeds will result in some kind of real response. People have been saying “delete Facebook” for years, reporters have been writing damning stories about Facebook for years, Facebook’s representatives have been embarrassing themselves in front of government bodies for years, and we have known that something needs to be done to rein in Facebook for years. To be clear, there was a long period (most of Facebook’s history prior to 2016) when Facebook was largely fawned over by much of the press, the political establishment, and many academics/thinkers who should have known better—but we no longer see Zuckerberg as the kindly inventor of a wonderful new thing, rather he is now seen as the hubristic creator of a monster that he has uncaringly set loose to prey upon the public. Despite the fact that Facebook literally stopped working for much of a day, we increasingly find ourselves in a situation wherein we have to balance two things: it has become extremely clear that many of us (indeed, entire societies) are heavily reliant on Facebook, and at the same time it is clear that Facebook is exactly the sort of company that we should not be relying on. It is fun to fantasize about Facebook suddenly disappearing, but if Facebook were to suddenly disappear it would have a significantly negative impact on many people’s lives; and those who might be most heavily impacted are not Facebook’s aggrieved users in the United States, but those in parts of the world for whom WhatsApp has become an essential means of communication. It is easier to imagine Facebook causing the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of Facebook—and this is because we have grown accustomed to a steady deluge of stories about how Facebook is screwing up the world, while at the same time Facebook has become one of the defining features of “the world as we know it.” Thus, if we want to get to where we want to go (a society in which Facebook’s power has been significantly curtailed if not completely dismantled), it is worth considering where we are now. Do not expect those who got us into this mess to get us out of it The Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, deserves ample credit for coming forward. It takes genuine courage to do what Haugen did, and she should be applauded for it. Nevertheless, beyond damning accusations that Facebook knows exactly what it’s doing and is doing it anyways, it is still worth considering other parts of Haugen’s testimony: she opposed breaking up Facebook, pushed for collaborative solutions, and though she accused Facebook of “moral bankruptcy” noted that she “joined Facebook because I think Facebook has the potential to bring out the best in us.” Haugen fits the model of a new figure we have seen grow in stature in the last few years: the former tech insider turned public critic. Such figures come out of the tech world with resumés stacked with time at major tech companies, and then make a public pivot wherein they state that their time working in the tech sector has made it clear to them just how harmful many of these companies can be. Given their impeccabl
Re: Facebook
"if you have not spent significant time here, you would not realize..." Sure, I will. Consider that the amount of money being invested here in future policy, infrastructure, education (nearly 3 billion in higher ed for a country of 12 million) is staggering. The local attire is worn as a symbol of identity and class, and it is not mandatory, like in my wife's country, Iran. Despite any laws, creative expression is generally open and artistic forums like the Sharjah Art Foundation, Dubai Culture are pushing some unbelievably avant-garde work. I won't give my resident country a full pass, but the fact that it is illegal to demean, insult, or deride anyone's religion is illegal means that the UAE is generally more civil than the USA. We have some net filters, sure. But 70 -90 nationalities, overall civility, and almost no crime. It's interesting. But I was at the Daiso store looking at the National Day paraphenalia, and I noticed costumes that were VERY "Western" in nature, and Arabic figures for a nativity... another thing is that a 3D CGI animation of Sheikh Zayed that was loved here was totally at odds with Islamic Aniconism, but it was surprisingly OK. There is a huge shopping mall under the Sheikh Zayed Mosque, and a Buudhist temple is being erected in Abu Dhabi. The syncretic nature of the place is unbelievable, and it constantly gets mistaken for Saudi. It definitely isn't but even Saudi has about the same underground secularism as Iran. With the moral decentering of America, as an American, I don't feel like I have any moral superiority here, or if so, only in specific areas. Geoffrey, what I am saying is that the UAE is far more heterogenous than one would imagine. It's surprising. I'll leave it at that. On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:15:41 +, Geoffrey Goodell <good...@oxonia.net> wrote: Dear Alan, "if you have not spent significant time here, you would not realize" Can you please elaborate on this point? What is it that we need to realise? I am sure that you are right about this, although without describing what it is that we do not realise, we will surely never realise it. If it is something that can be described, then please describe it. If it is something vague and ineffable, then how could we assign it credence? Best wishes -- Geoff On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 05:45:55AM -0500, v...@voyd.com wrote: > > > > > I'm there, and for me, it is as much my location (Arabia) and how able I am to access global networks from here - it isn't bad, but we do have some firewalling to political, adult, etc. For me, I feel that if I were in the Western World, I would be in a position to have a different stance. Here in Asia, the sociopolitics are extremely different to the point that if you have not spent significant time here, you would not realize, and I am not speaking to the far more restrictive Saudi society. I think it is easy to have a Western politics and think that they just translate tot he rest of the world. This is also not being in defence; it is merely pointing towards the differend. > > The politics of the infrastructure in the time of the Stacks is something I struggle with. > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:29:17 -0500 (EST), Alan Sondheim <sondh...@panix.com> wrote: > > > I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped > because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had > on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on > for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own > viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which > then returns on the next login. > > I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem > unimaginable to me. > > Best, Alan > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: > > > maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of > > course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure > > (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine > > facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and > > biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook > > not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is > > absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, > > what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while > > circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of > > social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant > > give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a > > growing se
Re: Facebook
Dear nettimers, the Facebook Question is a timely and necessary debate. It turns out that we’re trapped. It is neither politically correct to leave, nor is it to stay. This is the perfect example of the current stagnation (also known as The Great Regression). This topic was already discussed a decade ago. I personally left Facebook as part of the first Leaving Facebook campaign, together with 50.000 others, in 2010, to protest against Together with Korinna Patelis our Institute of Network Cultures, together with many others, started the Unlike Us network, back in July 2011. At the time we were still confident that alternatives would be able to make a real difference, and that the global tribe would eventually move on—as we all did, coming from Friendster, the blogosphere, Myspace, email lists, forums, Geocities or Hyves. The problem we’re facing now should not be dealt with through moral policing. This nettime debate clearly shows that have moved on from there. The attitude of the radical left and autonomous movements across the globe towards Facebook clearly shows this. Whereas many aspects of life are used to controlled other comrades (such as eating meat, flying, language control), this is not the case with Facebook (let alone Instagram or WhatsApp). Ironically, it is precisely after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and now the Libra controversy, that there are viable alternatives available for literally any internet service. Much like in the search engine alternatives debate is already happening for some time, we should 1. demoralize the debate 2. not expect anything much from governments or Brussels (or the UN, for that matter) and instead 3. focus to make it damn easy do a mass exodus of networks, profiles (code word: data or profile portability). Below are some links we collect together at the INC Unlike Us list and Sam de Silva's Billions list (as part of ‘collaborative text filtering’, one of nettime’s original aims and practices that we all continue doing up until today). What’s striking is the lack of places to have this debate. Everyone is talking about social media but there is little or no room for strategic collaborative thinking in this vast realm. There is plenty of reseach, a overwhelming amount of ‘use’ but little or no space to ask the ‘what’s to be done’ question. We’re all trapped in our very own way, either inside or outside. Great we’re discussing this here! Best, Geert — Mark Zuckerberg is a threat to democracy (via Gert) https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/status/118713663142752 <https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/status/118713663142752> Facebook hiding likes? https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/26/facebook-hides-likes/ <https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/26/facebook-hides-likes/> Colin Horgan: We Don’t Need Social Media The push to regulate or break up Facebook ignores the fact that its services do more harm than good https://onezero.medium.com/we-dont-need-social-media-53d5455f4f6b <https://onezero.medium.com/we-dont-need-social-media-53d5455f4f6b> Transcript of Mark Zuckerberg’s leaked internal Facebook meetings https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20892354/mark-zuckerberg-full-transcript-leaked-facebook-meetings <https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20892354/mark-zuckerberg-full-transcript-leaked-facebook-meetings> We don’t need social media (via Patricia de Vries) https://onezero.medium.com/we-dont-need-social-media-53d5455f4f6b <https://onezero.medium.com/we-dont-need-social-media-53d5455f4f6b> Transaction fees change culture bitcoin, study says https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/10/transaction-fees-change-culture-bitcoin-study-says <https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/10/transaction-fees-change-culture-bitcoin-study-says> Social media app TikTok bans paid political ads amid increased scrutiny - 5 Oct 2019 - The video-driven social media app is shunning paid political advertising amid scrutiny of other social networks, particularly Facebook. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/social-media-app-tiktok-bans-paid-political-ads-amid-increased-scrutiny <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/social-media-app-tiktok-bans-paid-political-ads-amid-increased-scrutiny> Social media in Egypt: From harbinger of a revolution to weapon of authoritarian control - 3 Oct 2019 - Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s tough crackdown in the wake of recent protests shows how the state has exploited technologies that were once used to mobilize people during the 2011 revolution. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-social-media-in-egypt-from-harbinger-of-a-revolution-to-weapon-of/ <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-social-media-in-egypt-from-harbinger-of-a-revolution-to-weapon-of/> The Same Old Encryption Debate Has a New Target: Facebook - 3 Oct 2019 - Attorney general William Barr seems eager to reignite the encryption wars, starting with the social media giant.
Re: Facebook
I read about this - it sounds amazing, and working through consensus is brilliant. Fb is different, however; it's taken me a long time to build community that 'works for me' on it, people worldwide who are interested in the kinds of media art, music, theory, that I'm interested in. So there's a kind of flow, give and take, that's valuable (especially for those of us who have no institutional support). I feel oddly nomadic in this regard. But it's important for me to connect with online work and network projects, for example, with participants everywhere, reading documents from Nauru re: refugee conditions. - Alan On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, tac...@riseup.net wrote: other social networks are possible https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50127713 Em 2019-11-04 21:29, Alan Sondheim escreveu: I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which then returns on the next login. I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem unimaginable to me. Best, Alan On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> The loss is more important to me > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. > > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term perspective and > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively long term > perspective and context (Frederic's). > > A common disjuncture. > What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively short term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my posts, etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run talkers, a MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've taught courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things that keeps me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these constant presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: below, there is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far more complex as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email lists themselves). So "email is also shit"? I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through Fb, fight racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who have found community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated in courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the platform. I don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's purity can be another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also given that the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality is far greater (and far more diverse and interesti
Re: Facebook
Dear Alan, "if you have not spent significant time here, you would not realize" Can you please elaborate on this point? What is it that we need to realise? I am sure that you are right about this, although without describing what it is that we do not realise, we will surely never realise it. If it is something that can be described, then please describe it. If it is something vague and ineffable, then how could we assign it credence? Best wishes -- Geoff On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 05:45:55AM -0500, v...@voyd.com wrote: > > > > > I'm there, and for me, it is as much my location (Arabia) and how able I am > to access global networks from here - it isn't bad, but we do have some > firewalling to political, adult, etc. For me, I feel that if I were in the > Western World, I would be in a position to have a different stance. Here in > Asia, the sociopolitics are extremely different to the point that if you have > not spent significant time here, you would not realize, and I am not speaking > to the far more restrictive Saudi society. I think it is easy to have a > Western politics and think that they just translate tot he rest of the world. > This is also not being in defence; it is merely pointing towards the > differend. > > The politics of the infrastructure in the time of the Stacks is something I > struggle with. > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:29:17 -0500 (EST), Alan Sondheim > <sondh...@panix.com> wrote: > > > I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped > because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had > on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on > for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own > viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which > then returns on the next login. > > I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem > unimaginable to me. > > Best, Alan > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: > > > maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad > (of > > course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure > > (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine > > facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes > and > > biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook > > not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is > > absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain > communities, > > what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities > while > > circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of > > social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a > constant > > give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a > > growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a > > tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic > > recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data > > and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering > users > > than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. > > craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: > > > > > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: > > >> > > >> The loss is more important to me > > > > > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for > > sure;? > > >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the > > possibility of > > >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. > > > > > > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term > > perspective and > > > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively > > long term > > > perspective and context (Frederic's). > > > > > > A common disjuncture. > > > > > > > What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively > > short > > term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my > > posts, > > etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run > > talkers, a > > MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've > > taught > >
Re: Facebook
Even though it might seem trite, I think that a return to the rhetoric of Barlow's Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace is not the worst idea. In some ways, it could be updated to say that you had your chance; all it has done has subjugated the internet with capitalism and ignorance. While I don;t expect a grand Digital Spring, nor do I think that the networks de refusees are teh answers either, I feel a much more subtle social shift is in order, and I see the potential of it in the Post-Trump world if we do not let the fragmentation that has compounded itself upon polarization drag everything further into the abyss. Because there is not cliff to go over, as the situation for me is far stranger than merely going across a line (I.e. cliff) On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:23:36 -0800, tac...@riseup.net wrote: other social networks are possible https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50127713 Em 2019-11-04 21:29, Alan Sondheim escreveu: > I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped > because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I > had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which > went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its > own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, > which then returns on the next login. > > I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem > unimaginable to me. > > Best, Alan > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: > >> maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of >> course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure >> (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine >> facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and >> biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook >> not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is >> absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, >> what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while >> circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of >> social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant >> give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a >> growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a >> tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic >> recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data >> and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users >> than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. >> craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: >> >> > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> >> >> The loss is more important to me >> > >> >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >> >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for >> sure;? >> >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the >> possibility of >> >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. >> > >> > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term >> perspective and >> > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively >> long term >> > perspective and context (Frederic's). >> > >> > A common disjuncture. >> > >> >> What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively >> short >> term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my >> posts, >> etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run >> talkers, a >> MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've >> taught >> courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things >> that keeps >> me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these >> constant >> presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: >> below, there >> is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far >> more complex >> as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email >> lists >> themselves). So "email is also shit"? >> >> I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through >> Fb, fight >> racism, and take advantage of
Re: Facebook
I'm there, and for me, it is as much my location (Arabia) and how able I am to access global networks from here - it isn't bad, but we do have some firewalling to political, adult, etc. For me, I feel that if I were in the Western World, I would be in a position to have a different stance. Here in Asia, the sociopolitics are extremely different to the point that if you have not spent significant time here, you would not realize, and I am not speaking to the far more restrictive Saudi society. I think it is easy to have a Western politics and think that they just translate tot he rest of the world. This is also not being in defence; it is merely pointing towards the differend. The politics of the infrastructure in the time of the Stacks is something I struggle with. On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:29:17 -0500 (EST), Alan Sondheim <sondh...@panix.com> wrote: I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which then returns on the next login. I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem unimaginable to me. Best, Alan On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: > maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of > course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure > (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine > facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and > biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook > not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is > absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, > what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while > circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of > social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant > give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a > growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a > tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic > recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data > and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users > than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. > craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: > > > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: > >> > >> The loss is more important to me > > > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for > sure;? > >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the > possibility of > >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. > > > > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term > perspective and > > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively > long term > > perspective and context (Frederic's). > > > > A common disjuncture. > > > > What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively > short > term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my > posts, > etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run > talkers, a > MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've > taught > courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things > that keeps > me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these > constant > presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: > below, there > is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far > more complex > as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email > lists > themselves). So "email is also shit"? > > I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through > Fb, fight > racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who > have found > community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated > in > courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the > platform. I > don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's > purity can be > another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also > g
Re: Facebook
other social networks are possible https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50127713 Em 2019-11-04 21:29, Alan Sondheim escreveu: > I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped > because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I > had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which > went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its > own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, > which then returns on the next login. > > I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem > unimaginable to me. > > Best, Alan > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: > >> maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of >> course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure >> (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine >> facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and >> biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook >> not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is >> absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, >> what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while >> circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of >> social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant >> give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a >> growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a >> tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic >> recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data >> and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users >> than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. >> craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: >> >> > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> >> >> The loss is more important to me >> > >> >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >> >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for >> sure;? >> >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the >> possibility of >> >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. >> > >> > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term >> perspective and >> > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively >> long term >> > perspective and context (Frederic's). >> > >> > A common disjuncture. >> > >> >> What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively >> short >> term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my >> posts, >> etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run >> talkers, a >> MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've >> taught >> courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things >> that keeps >> me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these >> constant >> presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: >> below, there >> is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far >> more complex >> as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email >> lists >> themselves). So "email is also shit"? >> >> I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through >> Fb, fight >> racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who >> have found >> community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated >> in >> courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the >> platform. I >> don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's >> purity can be >> another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also >> given that >> the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality >> is fa
Re: Facebook
I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which then returns on the next login. I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem unimaginable to me. Best, Alan On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote: maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: >> >> The loss is more important to me > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. > > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term perspective and > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively long term > perspective and context (Frederic's). > > A common disjuncture. > What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively short term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my posts, etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run talkers, a MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've taught courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things that keeps me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these constant presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: below, there is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far more complex as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email lists themselves). So "email is also shit"? I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through Fb, fight racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who have found community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated in courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the platform. I don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's purity can be another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also given that the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality is far greater (and far more diverse and interesting) than its public image. Alan > It is a complex issue. On the one hand it makes sense to adjust your > means to the ends you desire. Be the change you want to see and all that. > > On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of neoliberalisation when > the responsibility for the future of the system is distributed to > individuals - and at the end of the day, it is impossible to live in > this planetary urbanisation without acting in destructive ways, so we > all have to cut corners. Email is also shit for the web of life we are > entangled in. > #?distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #?? is a moderated mailing list for net
Re: Facebook
maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure (of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities, what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely. craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/ On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: > > > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: > >> > >> The loss is more important to me > > > >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? > >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility > of > >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. > > > > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term perspective and > > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively long term > > perspective and context (Frederic's). > > > > A common disjuncture. > > > > What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively short > term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my posts, > etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run talkers, a > MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've taught > courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things that keeps > me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these constant > presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: below, there > is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far more complex > as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email lists > themselves). So "email is also shit"? > > I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through Fb, fight > racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who have found > community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated in > courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the platform. I > don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's purity can be > another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also given that > the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality is far > greater (and far more diverse and interesting) than its public image. > > Alan > > > > It is a complex issue. On the one hand it makes sense to adjust your > > means to the ends you desire. Be the change you want to see and all that. > > > > On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of neoliberalisation when > > the responsibility for the future of the system is distributed to > > individuals - and at the end of the day, it is impossible to live in > > this planetary urbanisation without acting in destructive ways, so we > > all have to cut corners. Email is also shit for the web of life we are > > entangled 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: > > > # 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: > # 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: Facebook
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote: On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: The loss is more important to me On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. Individual, particular and hence relatively short term perspective and context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively long term perspective and context (Frederic's). A common disjuncture. What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively short term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my posts, etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run talkers, a MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've taught courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things that keeps me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these constant presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re: below, there is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far more complex as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email lists themselves). So "email is also shit"? I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through Fb, fight racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who have found community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated in courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the platform. I don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's purity can be another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also given that the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality is far greater (and far more diverse and interesting) than its public image. Alan It is a complex issue. On the one hand it makes sense to adjust your means to the ends you desire. Be the change you want to see and all that. On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of neoliberalisation when the responsibility for the future of the system is distributed to individuals - and at the end of the day, it is impossible to live in this planetary urbanisation without acting in destructive ways, so we all have to cut corners. Email is also shit for the web of life we are entangled 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: # 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: Facebook
Similar example. I never had a Facebook account, either personal or with my projects in the fields of media and participative urbanism, but often had to lurk through my collaborators or intern in order to get to circles I wanted to access. Now I am starting a new project curating the citizen’s involvement in a co-design process at territorial scale funded by EU. Our main social media channel will be facebook, because it is the only / more effective way to reach the general audience we expect to engage in the project. It is quite ironic, as in the last 15 years (starting BTW from one of these Italian “revolutionary” squats Carsten was naming) I have been constantly challenged with the dream of designing a platform dedicated to collaborative bottom-up production of territorial atlases, with the idea that we need alternative tools giving communities the possibility to represent, discuss, manage and (maybe) change their socio-spatial identities. Now finally within my organisation we are getting to test online our first prototype, but we are far from proposing such tool as a full alternative to facebook or other social media. Currently, our best scenario is to amplify the publication of content in the autonomous platform through mainstream social media, with the idea at least of fostering a gradual transition towards decentralised and community owned models. ... sorry to be able to propose just a modestly reformist approach… some writings of mine about this topic: http://www.tesserae.eu/publication/cartografia-resistente/ <http://www.tesserae.eu/publication/cartografia-resistente/> http://www.tesserae.eu/publication/comma-neighbourhood-atlas/ <http://www.tesserae.eu/publication/comma-neighbourhood-atlas/> best Lorenzo > On 4. Nov 2019, at 14:15, Carsten Agger wrote: > > > > On 11/3/19 5:28 PM, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, >> environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook >> and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) >> network. >> >> This article >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right >> >> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right> >> is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. >> > > I use Facebook. I use it to keep up with some important networks, among > others my local capoeira group is coordinating the training in a Facebook > Group, so if I was not on it I wouldn't know if training is canceled etc. > > That illustrates a very important point: > > Your mileage may in vary according to your location and interests, but > Facebook is no longer "just" a social network you can choose to use, it's the > public communication infrastructure in a lot of contexts. To illustrate my > point, two years ago I visited a revolutionary communist squat in Napoli, > Italy, with graffitis and posters against the system and for a worker's > revolution everywhere. > > Their online presence? A Facebook page. > > That means, that in general, the IT giants - Facebook, Google, to a lesser > degree Twitter, Microsoft, definitely Amazon, Apple ... - are no longer just > annoyances that people can avoid by their individual choices. I'm sorry to > say that in some places even Uber, the Über-exploiters, has become basic > infrastructure. :-( If we say to people they should not be on Facebook, never > shop with Amazon, not use any Google services and not even think about > touching any software provided by Microsoft (which I at least don't) or > Apple, we should, at the same time, explain to them how they will get back a > similar level of infrastructure. > > This monopolization and privatization of public space can't be broken by > individuals choosing to be "on" or "not on", and it's pointless to believe it > could. It should be solved on a structural level. Specifically, I think, by > legislation and regulations, including a complete ban on collecting data for > advertising purposes (goodbye Google, goodbye Facebook). If society fails to > address the privatization of information infrastructure, it makes no sense to > chide individuals or have them go without vital infrastructure. We could help > people to different infrastructure, by supplying it and by educating, but > this also requires dedicated resources - i.e., that's also a structural > problem that has no relation at all to individual choices. > > And, also specifically, I don't think Facebook are worse than any of the > other companies I mentioneded.
Re: Facebook
Carsten -- well said, and thank you for the trenchant characterisation of the
problem and initial thoughts on how we might resolve it. Your observation that
certain businesses have become infrastructure is spot-on.
I think you're also right to link the platform businesses [1] with privately
owned public spaces (POPS) in the urban planning context. The problems are
similar. A cash-strapped government cannot offer some essential service, and
the private-sector, channelling Andrew Carnegie, steps in to offer a 'solution'
that turns out to be essentially self-serving. What would it take for some
government (in Europe or North America, say) to provide 'neutral'
infrastructure? Would there be requests for proposals? Would there be
standardisation committees? Would this take decades? The private sector,
fuelled by data harvesting revenues, can get it done faster. And of course our
{city, province, nation, international alliance} needs to be competitive now,
lest we miss out when someone else wins the race, since Winners Take All [2]!
And the dangers don't stop here. The following was overheard at an event on
financial crime hosted by the UK Financial Conduct Authority in August
concerning the Financial Action Task Force (FATF):
"Government does not create innovative solutions. In a capitalist system, we
rely upon the private sector for that."
So does this mean that we will allow Facebook and Google to continue to operate
so long as they make sure that our financial cops have whatever they want?
Does this mean we pay those mercenary armies to do our dirty work for us,
collecting data revenues, paid by wealthy manipulators, as compensation since
our institutions are out of cash?
How can we unwire our institutions from this situation? It seems politically
difficult, perhaps intractable. We'll need to raise taxes. We'll need to host
a conversation about infrastructure, power, and control. We'll need to make
some decisions based on moral values, not just money or even data. I'm not
sure we remember how to do that.
What do you think our first step should be?
Best wishes --
Geoff
[1] I do not like the term 'tech giants' because (a) many firms that deal in
technology are not systematically contributing to the practices we are
discussing, (b) it fatalistically suggests an inseparable link between the
advance of technology and such practices, and (c) it misleadingly suggests that
the main problem with these businesses is their size, when in reality even
small businesses contribute directly to this problem.
[2] Anand Giridharadas, _Winners Take All_. I strongly recommend it, not only
for its characterisation of Silicon Valley elites but also for its discussion
of why nationalism is back in vogue as a response to a global elite that has
shunned legitimate political processes.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 02:15:28PM +0100, Carsten Agger wrote:
>
> On 11/3/19 5:28 PM, Frederic Neyrat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists,
> > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on
> > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this
> > "social" (?) network.
> >
> > This
> > article??https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right
> > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion.
> >
>
> I use Facebook. I use it to keep up with some important networks, among
> others my local capoeira group is coordinating the training in a
> Facebook Group, so if I was not on it I wouldn't know if training is
> canceled etc.
>
> That illustrates a very important point:
>
> Your mileage may in vary according to your location and interests, but
> Facebook is no longer "just" a social network you can choose to use,
> it's the public communication infrastructure in a lot of contexts. To
> illustrate my point, two years ago I visited a revolutionary communist
> squat in Napoli, Italy, with graffitis and posters against the system
> and for a worker's revolution /everywhere/.
>
> Their online presence? A Facebook page.
>
> That means, that in general, the IT giants - Facebook, Google, to a
> lesser degree Twitter, Microsoft, definitely Amazon, Apple ... - are no
> longer just annoyances that people can avoid by their individual
> choices. I'm sorry to say that in some places even Uber, the
> ??ber-exploiters, has become basic infrastructure. :-( If we say to
> people they should not be on Facebook, never shop with Amazon, not use
> any Google services and not even think about touching any software
> provided by Microsoft (which I at least don't) or Apple, we should, at
> the same time, explain to them how they will get back a si
Re: Facebook
On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote: > > The loss is more important to me > On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: >> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? >> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of >> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. Individual, particular and hence relatively short term perspective and context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively long term perspective and context (Frederic's). A common disjuncture. It is a complex issue. On the one hand it makes sense to adjust your means to the ends you desire. Be the change you want to see and all that. On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of neoliberalisation when the responsibility for the future of the system is distributed to individuals - and at the end of the day, it is impossible to live in this planetary urbanisation without acting in destructive ways, so we all have to cut corners. Email is also shit for the web of life we are entangled 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: Facebook
On 11/3/19 5:28 PM, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > "social" (?) network. > > This > article > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > I use Facebook. I use it to keep up with some important networks, among others my local capoeira group is coordinating the training in a Facebook Group, so if I was not on it I wouldn't know if training is canceled etc. That illustrates a very important point: Your mileage may in vary according to your location and interests, but Facebook is no longer "just" a social network you can choose to use, it's the public communication infrastructure in a lot of contexts. To illustrate my point, two years ago I visited a revolutionary communist squat in Napoli, Italy, with graffitis and posters against the system and for a worker's revolution /everywhere/. Their online presence? A Facebook page. That means, that in general, the IT giants - Facebook, Google, to a lesser degree Twitter, Microsoft, definitely Amazon, Apple ... - are no longer just annoyances that people can avoid by their individual choices. I'm sorry to say that in some places even Uber, the Über-exploiters, has become basic infrastructure. :-( If we say to people they should not be on Facebook, never shop with Amazon, not use any Google services and not even think about touching any software provided by Microsoft (which I at least don't) or Apple, we should, at the same time, explain to them how they will get back a similar level of infrastructure. This monopolization and privatization of public space can't be broken by individuals choosing to be "on" or "not on", and it's pointless to believe it could. It should be solved on a structural level. Specifically, I think, by legislation and regulations, including a complete ban on collecting data for advertising purposes (goodbye Google, goodbye Facebook). If society fails to address the privatization of information infrastructure, it makes no sense to chide individuals or have them go without vital infrastructure. We could help people to different infrastructure, by supplying it and by educating, but this also requires dedicated resources - i.e., that's also a structural problem that has no relation at all to individual choices. And, also specifically, I don't think Facebook are worse than any of the other companies I mentioneded. I think Google is probably the one standing out as the truly worst and most ruthless of the bunch, but singling out Facebook makes no sense. At least, Facebook doesn't treat their workers as slaves, as Amazon does (or I assume they mostly don't). My own Facebook account lives it life dangerously and might indeed go in the near future - I could make some anonymous dummy one for the capoeira class, that would work. But I don't think that it would be an act of resistance against the evil social media empire, it would be down to personal annoyance and nothing else. For many people, deleting their social media would, as things stand, be tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot - and nothing else. Their is a potential war between decency, freedom and democracy and the likes of Facebook and Google, but it does not lie in people's individual choices of infrastructure. Best Carsten # 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: Facebook
José Maria said "We can't have more awareness." I'm sure we can. Many people suspect that FB is bullshit but very few have a clear explanation. #MyFacebookInvoice was one of my many attempts to draw attention to the fact that: 1 - FB is only the almost automatic result of a choice of protocols (distributed Multicast > centralized Unicast) that was made in the 90s while MZ was still only a schoolboy. 2 - FB is only an industrialization of our "cognitive asymmetries" of which MZ himself is not aware. 3 - FB is not a social network but a social silo, in other words, it is only an illegitimate avatar of one of the three "anoptical perspectives" of the networks As I tried to show in my book "ANOPTIKON, an exploration of the invisible Internet: escaping Darwin's hand", which details the functioning of these protocols, the roots and mechanisms of our cognitive asymmetries, and the different types of anoptical perspectives of networks and their conditions of legitimacy, Facebook could be overcome the day when these points would become evident to a large part of the population. It will one day, but when? Anoptikon, preface of Philippe Quéau: https://medium.com/@olivierauber/anoptikon-e57199b8e76a Olivier Auber On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 2:09 AM José María Mateos wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 11:29:27PM +0100, olivier auber wrote: > >I'm still on FB to increase #MyFacebookInvoice > >Olivier Auber > > > >BTW, I wonder why this campaign got quite a big success in european media > >but not a word in US ones... > > > http://perspective-numerique.net/PDF/MyFacebookInvoice-Press_Release-20180129.pdf > > This looks like the "Internet money" that was central to a South Park > episode: https://southpark.cc.com/clips/165195/meet-the-internet-stars > > I think we have more than enough awareness. We can't have more > awareness. Everybody knows what's Facebook, its limitations and what > it's terrible at. But that's one thing, and another is making that > important to every user (or most users). > > Cheers, > > -- > José María (Chema) Mateos > # 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: Facebook
About eight and a half months ago I quit Facebook and all social media. My reasons are given here: https://medium.com/@premckar/a-farewell-to-social-media-33db26074498 <https://medium.com/@premckar/a-farewell-to-social-media-33db26074498> Having said that, I echo the sentiments expressed by many in response to your question: namely that Facebook is a highly flawed system, but useful in many aspects. So it must be a platform that must be viewed with a critical discernment, and not taken too seriously at times. I still miss some of the benefits people have listed in this thread, but the sum total still made me quit. So as I note at the end of my essay, if it was a farewell, it was a restless farewell. Best, Prem > On 03-Nov-2019, at 9:58 PM, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook > and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) > network. > > This article > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right > > <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right> > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > Frederic Neyrat > > # 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: # 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: Facebook
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 11:29:27PM +0100, olivier auber wrote: I'm still on FB to increase #MyFacebookInvoice Olivier Auber BTW, I wonder why this campaign got quite a big success in european media but not a word in US ones... http://perspective-numerique.net/PDF/MyFacebookInvoice-Press_Release-20180129.pdf This looks like the "Internet money" that was central to a South Park episode: https://southpark.cc.com/clips/165195/meet-the-internet-stars I think we have more than enough awareness. We can't have more awareness. Everybody knows what's Facebook, its limitations and what it's terrible at. But that's one thing, and another is making that important to every user (or most users). Cheers, -- José María (Chema) Mateos || https://rinzewind.org/ # 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: Facebook
I'm still on FB to increase #MyFacebookInvoice Olivier Auber BTW, I wonder why this campaign got quite a big success in european media but not a word in US ones... http://perspective-numerique.net/PDF/MyFacebookInvoice-Press_Release-20180129.pdf On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Alan Sondheim wrote: > > The loss is more important to me; the community functions as best an > online community can. I'm connected with all sorts of other networks as > well such as Furtherfield, ELO, etc. What I find worse and more > problematic is the university system including publications - I can't > afford most books that are advertised for example (which is why the > Alexandria project was so important for me); I go to conferences if I can > get a stipend, etc. American intellectual life is more of a divide for a > lot of people than Fb. > > (Of course it also depends how intelligently one uses Fb; I put in a lot > of controls, use blocking, etc.) > > - Alan > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > > Thanks Alan! But I've a question, I try to formulate it... Let's say:? > > > > 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? > > 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of > > community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. For instance, in > making > > possible the election of people whose main goal is to destroy any > > community/being-in-common (note that I do not consider being quantified > and > > recombined by algorithms a good way to generate some being-in-common). > > > > So, in the end, I understand?that something would be lost by leaving FB - > > hence my first question! - but would it be possible to say that the loss > is > > even more important while not quitting FB? > > > > My best, > > > > FN > > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:14 AM Alan Sondheim > wrote: > > > > > > I'm on it because there are a number of new media > > artists/writers/etc. > > including myself who form somewhat of a community - it's a way > > to > > distribute work, especially if one's not in academia or media > > industry. > > It's brutally flawed but also useful and it gives more scope to > > textual > > work than Instagram. > > > > Alan > > > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they > > activists, > > > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are > > (still) on Facebook > > > and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > > "social" (?) > > > network. > > > > > >Thisarticle? > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-pol > > itics- > > > republicans-right > > > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > > > > > Frederic Neyrat > > > > > > > > > > > > > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 > > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt > > > > > > > > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt > # 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: > # 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: Facebook / MZ, "trust," and "mythic forces"
Thanks Geoffrey, indeed, illuminating! Yet I also try to get the other part of it, i.e. the "trust"/belief aspect that the "Dumb fucks" description cannot grasp at all. I think I understand who MZ is, no doubt, and that Libra is an antiphrasis. I also know that MZ doesn't know where his power comes from, but he's able to use it very well. To know how to use something doesn't mean knowing what this thing is, knowing for instance - as Walter Benjamin says in his *Arcades* project, that capitalism is a "reactivation of mythic forces" [K, 391]. Without a redirection of these "mythic forces" (or whatever we call them), MZ will be powerful *ad vitam aeternam*. My best, FN On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 2:17 PM Geoffrey Goodell wrote: > P.S. I should have included a link to an article I co-authored about > Facebook > Libra: > > https://ssrn.com/abstract=3441707 > > Abstract: > > The announcement by Facebook that Libra will "deliver on the promise of > 'the > internet of money'" has drawn the attention of the financial world. > Regulators, > institutions, and users of financial products have all been prompted to > react > and, so far, no one managed to convince the association behind Libra to > apply > the brakes or to convince regulators to stop the project altogether. In > this > article, we propose that Libra might be best seen not as a financial > newcomer, > but as a critical enabler for Facebook to acquire a new source of personal > data. By working with financial regulators seeking to address concerns with > money laundering and terrorism, Facebook can position itself for privileged > access to high-assurance digital identity information. For this reason, > Libra > merits the attention of not only financial regulators, but also the state > actors that are concerned with reputational risks, the rule of law, public > safety, and national defence. > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 08:13:13PM +, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: > > This pithy exchange attributed to Mark Zuckerberg [1,2] might illuminate > the > > issue: > > > > Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard > > > > Zuck: Just ask. > > > > Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS > > > > [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? > > > > Zuck: People just submitted it. > > > > Zuck: I don't know why. > > > > Zuck: They "trust me" > > > > Zuck: Dumb fucks. > > > > --- > > > > Later, in an interview with David Kirkpatrick [3], Mark Zuckerberg > proclaimed > > his view on privacy: > > > > "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of > integrity." > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Michael Zimmer's assessment [4]: > > > > "Zuckerberg and those who surround him tend to be relentlessly > forward-looking > > on privacy: The issue for them is not how to protect users’ current > sense of > > privacy but to shape their willingness to share in the future." > > > > --- > > > > If we imagine that there are some people who stand to benefit from this > > dystopia we are building, or others who think that they stand to benefit > > because they have not considered the implications of this new emerging > morality > > in which common people are transparent but powerful interests have many > faces, > > then we can see how Facebook and its progeny might seem inevitable, or > even a > > necessary antidote to the fatigue of the modern world. > > > > Enjoy the links, they tell a more complete story than I ever could. > > > > Best wishes -- > > > > Geoff > > > > [1] http://www.bitsbook.com/2010/05/mark-z-grow-up/ > > > > [2] > https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 > > > > [3] David Kirkpatrick, _The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the > Company > > That Is Connecting the World_. Simon & Schuster; First Edition edition > (June > > 8, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1439102114. > > > > [4] > http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2008/11/18/do-you-trust-this-face-gq-on-mark-zuckerberg/ > > > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > > > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > > > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > > > "social
Re: Facebook
The loss is more important to me; the community functions as best an online community can. I'm connected with all sorts of other networks as well such as Furtherfield, ELO, etc. What I find worse and more problematic is the university system including publications - I can't afford most books that are advertised for example (which is why the Alexandria project was so important for me); I go to conferences if I can get a stipend, etc. American intellectual life is more of a divide for a lot of people than Fb. (Of course it also depends how intelligently one uses Fb; I put in a lot of controls, use blocking, etc.) - Alan On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: Thanks Alan! But I've a question, I try to formulate it... Let's say:? 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure;? 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the possibility of community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc. For instance, in making possible the election of people whose main goal is to destroy any community/being-in-common (note that I do not consider being quantified and recombined by algorithms a good way to generate some being-in-common). So, in the end, I understand?that something would be lost by leaving FB - hence my first question! - but would it be possible to say that the loss is even more important while not quitting FB? My best, FN On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:14 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: I'm on it because there are a number of new media artists/writers/etc. including myself who form somewhat of a community - it's a way to distribute work, especially if one's not in academia or media industry. It's brutally flawed but also useful and it gives more scope to textual work than Instagram. Alan On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook > and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) > network. > >Thisarticle?https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-pol itics- > republicans-right > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > Frederic Neyrat > > > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt # 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: facebook (Frederic Neyrat)
I'm on facebook because I have to manage social media for my employer. Truly the only reason I'm on there! Renée Reizman On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:53 AM wrote: > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > nettime-l@mail.kein.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nettime-l-requ...@mail.kein.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Facebook (Frederic Neyrat) >2. Re: Facebook (Jos? Mar?a Mateos) >3. Re: Facebook (Frederic Neyrat) >4. Re: Facebook (Alan Sondheim) >5. Re: Facebook (Frederic Neyrat) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 10:28:01 -0600 > From: Frederic Neyrat > To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism > > Subject: Facebook > Message-ID: > qsyykrep9t30xc5dg9yvdur58q-gbwv...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > "social" (?) network. > > This article > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > Frederic Neyrat > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20191103/ecefa2e0/attachment-0001.html > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 11:48:31 -0500 > From: Jos? Mar?a Mateos > To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org > Subject: Re: Facebook > Message-ID: <20191103164831.GF3718@equipaje> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > >environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > >Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > >"social" (?) network. > > I've been off Facebook (see caveats below), but the reasons people > typically have to stay there are essentially that it provides a useful > way of communicating with either a close circle of friends and family, > and to broadcast opinions to the world. And that utility is above all > other considerations. Is it used to wage psychological warfare on its > users? Sure, but of course it doesn't affect them, only other people. > > As I said, I don't have a Facebook account anymore, but keep close > contact with said friends and family using WhatsApp groups, which > belongs to Facebook, am I then out of Facebook entirely? I don't think > so. Would I like to use a different system/app/protocol/whatever? > Definitely, but I can't force everybody else to move; we're basically > stuck there due to the network effect. > > I am now the weird friend that from time to time shoots an e-mail; I'm > glad to say that it works, and that people tend to take it more > seriously than a Facebook message. As for broadcasting, I use a blog. > Do people read it? Barely, but at least what I post there is published > under my rules. > > Cheers, > > -- > Jos? Mar?a (Chema) Mateos || https://rinzewind.org/ > > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 11:06:29 -0600 > From: Frederic Neyrat > To: Jos? Mar?a Mateos > Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism > > Subject: Re: Facebook > Message-ID: > 3x62mfot...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thanks for your answer! > > My best, > > FN > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jos? Mar?a Mateos > wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > > >environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > > >Facebook and if yes, why, being given
Re: Facebook
P.S. I should have included a link to an article I co-authored about Facebook Libra: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3441707 Abstract: The announcement by Facebook that Libra will "deliver on the promise of 'the internet of money'" has drawn the attention of the financial world. Regulators, institutions, and users of financial products have all been prompted to react and, so far, no one managed to convince the association behind Libra to apply the brakes or to convince regulators to stop the project altogether. In this article, we propose that Libra might be best seen not as a financial newcomer, but as a critical enabler for Facebook to acquire a new source of personal data. By working with financial regulators seeking to address concerns with money laundering and terrorism, Facebook can position itself for privileged access to high-assurance digital identity information. For this reason, Libra merits the attention of not only financial regulators, but also the state actors that are concerned with reputational risks, the rule of law, public safety, and national defence. On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 08:13:13PM +, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: > This pithy exchange attributed to Mark Zuckerberg [1,2] might illuminate the > issue: > > Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard > > Zuck: Just ask. > > Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS > > [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? > > Zuck: People just submitted it. > > Zuck: I don't know why. > > Zuck: They "trust me" > > Zuck: Dumb fucks. > > --- > > Later, in an interview with David Kirkpatrick [3], Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed > his view on privacy: > > "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." > > I'm inclined to agree with Michael Zimmer's assessment [4]: > > "Zuckerberg and those who surround him tend to be relentlessly forward-looking > on privacy: The issue for them is not how to protect users??? current sense of > privacy but to shape their willingness to share in the future." > > --- > > If we imagine that there are some people who stand to benefit from this > dystopia we are building, or others who think that they stand to benefit > because they have not considered the implications of this new emerging > morality > in which common people are transparent but powerful interests have many faces, > then we can see how Facebook and its progeny might seem inevitable, or even a > necessary antidote to the fatigue of the modern world. > > Enjoy the links, they tell a more complete story than I ever could. > > Best wishes -- > > Geoff > > [1] http://www.bitsbook.com/2010/05/mark-z-grow-up/ > > [2] > https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 > > [3] David Kirkpatrick, _The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company > That Is Connecting the World_. Simon & Schuster; First Edition edition (June > 8, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1439102114. > > [4] > http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2008/11/18/do-you-trust-this-face-gq-on-mark-zuckerberg/ > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > > "social" (?) network. > > > > This article > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right > > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > > > Frederic Neyrat > > > # 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: > # 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: Facebook
This pithy exchange attributed to Mark Zuckerberg [1,2] might illuminate the issue: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. --- Later, in an interview with David Kirkpatrick [3], Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed his view on privacy: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." I'm inclined to agree with Michael Zimmer's assessment [4]: "Zuckerberg and those who surround him tend to be relentlessly forward-looking on privacy: The issue for them is not how to protect users??? current sense of privacy but to shape their willingness to share in the future." --- If we imagine that there are some people who stand to benefit from this dystopia we are building, or others who think that they stand to benefit because they have not considered the implications of this new emerging morality in which common people are transparent but powerful interests have many faces, then we can see how Facebook and its progeny might seem inevitable, or even a necessary antidote to the fatigue of the modern world. Enjoy the links, they tell a more complete story than I ever could. Best wishes -- Geoff [1] http://www.bitsbook.com/2010/05/mark-z-grow-up/ [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 [3] David Kirkpatrick, _The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World_. Simon & Schuster; First Edition edition (June 8, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1439102114. [4] http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2008/11/18/do-you-trust-this-face-gq-on-mark-zuckerberg/ On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > "social" (?) network. > > This article > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > Frederic Neyrat > # 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: # 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: Facebook
thanks! Sorry, i don't' get it:
social media is too vast to accurately
assess.
but to assess - what?
my best,
fn
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:22 PM { brad brace } wrote:
>
> [my posts to nettime don't get circulated unless there's a
> note like this one]
>
> To be brief: I'd say social media is too vast to accurately
> assess.
>
> /:b
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists,
> > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on
> > Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this
> > "social" (?) network.
> >
> > This article
> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right
> > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter,
> >
> > Frederic Neyrat
> >
>
# 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: Facebook
Thanks Alan! But I've a question, I try to formulate it... Let's say: 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for sure; 2/ but in the same time, it destroys the condition of the possibility of community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/être-ensemble, etc. For instance, in making possible the election of people whose main goal is to destroy any community/being-in-common (note that I do not consider being quantified and recombined by algorithms a good way to generate some being-in-common). So, in the end, I understand that something would be lost by leaving FB - hence my first question! - but would it be possible to say that the loss is even more important while not quitting FB? My best, FN On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:14 AM Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > I'm on it because there are a number of new media artists/writers/etc. > including myself who form somewhat of a community - it's a way to > distribute work, especially if one's not in academia or media industry. > It's brutally flawed but also useful and it gives more scope to textual > work than Instagram. > > Alan > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > > environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > Facebook > > and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) > > network. > > > > Thisarticle? > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics- > > republicans-right > > is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. > > > > Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, > > > > Frederic Neyrat > > > > > > > > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt > # 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: Facebook
I'm on it because there are a number of new media artists/writers/etc. including myself who form somewhat of a community - it's a way to distribute work, especially if one's not in academia or media industry. It's brutally flawed but also useful and it gives more scope to textual work than Instagram. Alan On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote: Hi, I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) network. Thisarticle?https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics- republicans-right is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, Frederic Neyrat web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wm.txt # 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: Facebook
Thanks for your answer! My best, FN On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM José María Mateos wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, > >environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on > >Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this > >"social" (?) network. > > I've been off Facebook (see caveats below), but the reasons people > typically have to stay there are essentially that it provides a useful > way of communicating with either a close circle of friends and family, > and to broadcast opinions to the world. And that utility is above all > other considerations. Is it used to wage psychological warfare on its > users? Sure, but of course it doesn't affect them, only other people. > > As I said, I don't have a Facebook account anymore, but keep close > contact with said friends and family using WhatsApp groups, which > belongs to Facebook, am I then out of Facebook entirely? I don't think > so. Would I like to use a different system/app/protocol/whatever? > Definitely, but I can't force everybody else to move; we're basically > stuck there due to the network effect. > > I am now the weird friend that from time to time shoots an e-mail; I'm > glad to say that it works, and that people tend to take it more > seriously than a Facebook message. As for broadcasting, I use a blog. > Do people read it? Barely, but at least what I post there is published > under my rules. > > Cheers, > > -- > José María (Chema) Mateos || https://rinzewind.org/ > # 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: > # 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: Facebook
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0600, Frederic Neyrat wrote: Hi, I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) network. I've been off Facebook (see caveats below), but the reasons people typically have to stay there are essentially that it provides a useful way of communicating with either a close circle of friends and family, and to broadcast opinions to the world. And that utility is above all other considerations. Is it used to wage psychological warfare on its users? Sure, but of course it doesn't affect them, only other people. As I said, I don't have a Facebook account anymore, but keep close contact with said friends and family using WhatsApp groups, which belongs to Facebook, am I then out of Facebook entirely? I don't think so. Would I like to use a different system/app/protocol/whatever? Definitely, but I can't force everybody else to move; we're basically stuck there due to the network effect. I am now the weird friend that from time to time shoots an e-mail; I'm glad to say that it works, and that people tend to take it more seriously than a Facebook message. As for broadcasting, I use a blog. Do people read it? Barely, but at least what I post there is published under my rules. Cheers, -- José María (Chema) Mateos || https://rinzewind.org/ # 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:
Hi, I'd like to know if some people on this list - be they activists, environmentalists, artists, thinkers, contributors - are (still) on Facebook and if yes, why, being given the extreme noxiousness of this "social" (?) network. This article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right is not the reason of my email, but its occasion. Thanks in advance for your light on this matter, Frederic Neyrat # 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: Libra: The Bank of Facebook
LIBRA isn't "libre" While LIBRA siphons off all the world's currency, we can also consider the path of the (true) "libre currency". It consists in creating a "common monetary protocol". This does not mean that money is common to all, but that we are equal in terms of monetary creation. Practically speaking, it is not that complicated. We have created a "free currency generator" called Duniter. It is a distributed network with a very low energy consumption. The first free currency is called Ğ1 (pronounced "June"). Anyone can join the Ğ1 money community for free by being sponsored by 5 people who are already members. The latter must simply guarantee that the new entrant is "human" and "living", without any other conditions. Once certified, the new entrant starts creating regular quantities of units of account through the Duniter network on the same basis as the others, and can use them to exchange any type of goods or services, directly or through various marketplaces. The objection is generally that if these account units are free, then they are worthless. Well, that's not true. Indeed, thanks to these units of account, members of the monetary community effectively exchange goods and services. So these units have a value. The larger the community, the greater the variety and quantity of tradable goods and services, and the more effectively the units of account will represent a certain value. Today, the Ğ1 community has about 2000 members. We estimate that the exchanges represent about $50 per month and per person. The calculation of the value of the Ğ1 unit is therefore quickly done knowing that everyone produces 10 per day. Let's imagine that tomorrow, we are 20,000,... 200 000 ... 2,000,000, and more then the value of Ğ1 would grow much more than linearly, until their monthly quantity, for example, would represent a sufficient income to exchange all the goods and services needed to live. This would therefore correspond to a kind of "basic income". This self-managed, non-profit initiative, in which no one has a dominant position, is therefore open to everyone, whether they are individuals or even legal entities. You can open an account in three clicks for an association or an informal group. In this case the account does not create a Ğ1 but it can be used as an intermediary to pool the resources of physical members to better enter the exchange circuit... So, if you are interested in this adventure, all you have to do is get closer to the existing members to get certified and support you in your first steps. https://g1.duniter.fr/#/app/wot/map You see, it's a completely different logic than LIBRA that you have to buy in dollars from Facebook before you start trading Of course, Duniter is free and can be forked to create other monetary communities Ğ2, Ğ3, Ğn or something else. On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:29 AM Rachel O' Dwyer wrote: > Below is a response to Facebook's announcement that it's releasing a > digital currency and wallet. > > Rachel > > > > *The Bank of Facebook* > > > > Marshall McLuhan argued that money is communication. This rings > particularly true at a time when so many platforms are entering the > payments space. The US payments app Venmo has created a social network for > payments, while the Chinese mobile messaging app WeChat has created social > and playful ways of exchanging payments as messages, even incorporating the > traditional Chinese ‘Hung Bao’ (red envelopes) into the payments > process. At the same time, communication is now money. Platforms with a > legacy in information and data are concerned with the circulation of value, > going so far in some instances as to produce their own money-like > instruments. This includes not only cryptocurrencies but also the use of > things like phone credit, SMS, instant messages, data and loyalty as a > means of payment. Companies like Safaricom and Vodafone are de facto banks > in the Global South. The platform Amazon, with a legacy in e-commerce, > cloud computing and artificial intelligence, is opening a checking system > and is rumoured to be applying for a financial license. Companies like > Google and Apple are hustling around digital wallets and payments. > > > > The exemplar is China, where Alipay and WePay are the ‘superapps’ of > payment, creating an integrated environment where users can message or send > payments to friends, order a taxi, buy their groceries and apply for a loan > all in the same application. Alibaba, the Chinese retail and AI > conglomerate that’s bigger than Amazon, founded Alipay in 2004 as a > payments platform for in-app purchases. They quickly expanded to include > peer-to-peer payments, store payments, and, over time, its own financial > services company
Libra: The Bank of Facebook
Below is a response to Facebook's announcement that it's releasing a digital currency and wallet. Rachel *The Bank of Facebook* Marshall McLuhan argued that money is communication. This rings particularly true at a time when so many platforms are entering the payments space. The US payments app Venmo has created a social network for payments, while the Chinese mobile messaging app WeChat has created social and playful ways of exchanging payments as messages, even incorporating the traditional Chinese ‘Hung Bao’ (red envelopes) into the payments process. At the same time, communication is now money. Platforms with a legacy in information and data are concerned with the circulation of value, going so far in some instances as to produce their own money-like instruments. This includes not only cryptocurrencies but also the use of things like phone credit, SMS, instant messages, data and loyalty as a means of payment. Companies like Safaricom and Vodafone are de facto banks in the Global South. The platform Amazon, with a legacy in e-commerce, cloud computing and artificial intelligence, is opening a checking system and is rumoured to be applying for a financial license. Companies like Google and Apple are hustling around digital wallets and payments. The exemplar is China, where Alipay and WePay are the ‘superapps’ of payment, creating an integrated environment where users can message or send payments to friends, order a taxi, buy their groceries and apply for a loan all in the same application. Alibaba, the Chinese retail and AI conglomerate that’s bigger than Amazon, founded Alipay in 2004 as a payments platform for in-app purchases. They quickly expanded to include peer-to-peer payments, store payments, and, over time, its own financial services company, ANT financial, that offered customers products based on their performance on the app. ANT financial later released Sesame Credit scoring, a new algorithmic credit rating based on data gleaned from the Alipay app and additional social network activity such as who users are friends with and what they share online. And in a culture where grandparents pay for groceries with their smartphones and the poor don QR codes to accept passing donations, there's plenty of data to choose from. Recently, people have been asking if this is a uniquely Chinese phenomenon and if not, who is set to become the WeChat or AliPay of the Western world? Will it be Apple, with Apple Pay and their recent launch of the Apple Card? Or maybe the bank of Amazon? The most recent is Facebook’s announcement that it is developing a digital cryptocurrency called Libra alongside a payments app, Calibra. The venture is supported by 28 investing companies that include network operators and Telcos (Vodafone); microlenders (Kiva); Payments providers (Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, Stripe, Coinbase), venture capital (Ribbit, Thrive), E-commerce (Spotify, EBay) and sharing platforms (Uber, Lyft). Banks are notably absent from the consortium. *It’s early days, but what exactly are Facebook setting out to do with Libra?* *#1 Facebook are interested in the 1.7 billion people in the world who have access to a mobile phone but no bank account.* The Libra whitepaper waxes lyrical about money as a public good, the world’s underbanked and their desperate need for financial inclusion. Catering to the unbanked isn’t a new proposition for an ICT company. The best example is M-Pesa, a mobile money transfer service founded in 2007 and run by Vodafone that allows for payments and financing through simple SMS services. Crucially this allows for secure and safe forms of remittance for people who are working abroad and sending money home or transferring money from place to place. For a vast portion of the world for which Facebook is already synonymous with ‘The Internet’, using the platform for domestic and global remittances might seem like the logical next step. In a nutshell, Facebook aren’t offering a solution to a problem that isn’t being solved by innovations like M-Pesa, or even BitPesa, a payments platform that uses blockchain settlement for fast, secure payment to and from Africa. But it’s probably in a position to leverage its existing monopoly to eclipse other solutions. *#2 The business model of Libra isn’t about transactional data, at least not initially.* Hearing Facebook want to have anything to do with payments will undoubtedly set alarm bells ringing. Platforms entering into online payments have adopted a business model that, like their other services, is often less interested with transaction fees and pay-per-use than with monetising data. In other words, this is usually less about charging for transferring payments from place to place like Western Union, or transaction fees like MasterCard and more concerned with monetising transactional data for advertising (if you bought this you’ll like this), or risk (people who buy violent video games may default o
Promoting a Messaiah - the Hindu nationalist agenda and Facebook in India
sacw.net - 3 May 2019 [Excerpt from ’The Real Face of Facebook in India: How Social Media Have Become a Weapon and Dissemninator of Disinformation and Falsehood’ by Cyril Sam and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (April 2019) Published by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta ] Promoting a Messaiah - the Hindu nationalist agenda and Facebook in India by Cyril Sam, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta “The 2014 Modi pre-election campaign was inspired by the 2012 campaign to elect Barack Obama as the “world’s first Facebook President.” Some of the managers of the Modi campaign like Jain were apparently inspired by Sasha Issenberg’s book on the topic, The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. In the first data-led election in India in 2014, information was collected from every possible source to not just micro-target users but also fine-tune messages praising and “mythologizing” Modi as the Great Leader who would usher in acche din (good times) for the country.“ [ . . . ] “Earlier, in 2015, the Modi government rallied support for the social media platform by announcing an e-governance scheme called “Digital India” – all government departments, ministers and bureaucrats were asked to create Facebook pages to reach out to their friends and constituents. In effect, Facebook became the default communication platform for the government of India. In the years that followed, supporters of the BJP started “weaponizing” Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to target voices critical of Modi and his party. [ . . . ] FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article14092.html # 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:
First Dog on the Moon: Facebook, Google, Twitter: they'd still be dreadful without the fascists
And then, as usual, First Dog on the Moon outclasses all text only comments "If Facebook’s algorithms are clever enough to send you ads for things you’ve talked about, they are clever enough to get rid of Nazis" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/facebook-google-twitter-theyd-still-be-dreadful-without-the-fascists Enjoy, sortof! p+2D! # 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 smog covering Facebook transparency
Exclusive access to correlations between apparently (to those without access to data firehoses) totally unrelated data, and act on such correlations without bothering to understand why they exist (it's a fallacy to assume that understanding is required for acting) is the name of the game: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/21/the-digital-military-industrial-complex/ : Nike and KitKat addicts hate Israel, statistically speaking. So perhaps specific word constructs in seemingly unrelated ads (maybe dealing with fish and chips) can nudge a relevant fraction of subjects to support the hard exit? (there is no way you can prove this wrong without access to data, and you don't have it.) The only way to detect these ops is to follow the money. The baffling part comes when you cannot begin to fathom why are they doing some specific thing. See the article above. On 3/9/19, 09:57, Allan Siegel wrote: Hello, All roads lead to Rome, or the the CIA, NSA, MI6, etc. etc. What happens when you try to follow the money and reach a seemingly dead end? "Obscure no-deal Brexit group is UK's biggest political spender on Facebook / Britain’s Future has spent £340,000 promoting hard exit – but no one knows who’s funding it… <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/09/obscure-no-deal-brexit-group-is-uks-biggest-political-spender-on-facebook> happy hunting allan # 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:
The smog covering Facebook transparency
Hello, All roads lead to Rome, or the the CIA, NSA, MI6, etc. etc. What happens when you try to follow the money and reach a seemingly dead end? "Obscure no-deal Brexit group is UK's biggest political spender on Facebook / Britain’s Future has spent £340,000 promoting hard exit – but no one knows who’s funding it… happy hunting allan # 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:
Carole Cadwalladr: A digital gangster destroying democracy: the damning verdict on Facebook (Guardian)
From our "we always thought it, but now we know" Dept. ... Original to: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/a-digital-gangster-destroying-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook A digital gangster destroying democracy: the damning verdict on Facebook Parliament’s report into fake news raises many questions, but will the government act? By Carole Cadwalladr, The Guardian, Mon 18 Feb 2019 Facebook is an out-of-control train wreck that is destroying democracy and must be brought under control. The final report of parliament’s inquiry into fake news and disinformation does not use this language, precisely, but it is, nonetheless, the report’s central message. And the language it does use is no less damning. Facebook behaves like a “digital gangster”. It considers itself to be “ahead of and beyond the law”. It “misled” parliament. It gave statements that were “not true”. Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has treated British lawmakers with “contempt”. It has pursued a “deliberate” strategy to deceive parliament. In terms of how lawmakers across the globe need to think about Silicon Valley, the report is a landmark. The first really comprehensive attempt of a major legislative body to peer into the dark heart of a dark economy of data manipulation and voter influence. And to come up with a set of recommendations that its chair, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth, Damian Collins, says must involve “a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people”. The scale of the report – it drew from 170 written submissions and evidence from 73 witnesses who were asked more than 4,350 questions – is without precedent. And it’s what contributes to making its conclusions so damning: that the government must now act. That Facebook must be regulated. That Britain’s electoral laws must be re-written from the bottom up; the report is unequivocal, they are not “fit for purpose”. And that the government must now open an independent investigation into foreign interference in all British elections since 2014. Cambridge Analytica was already on the committee’s radar when the scandal broke in March last year. But, over the ensuing weeks and months, it interviewed an extraordinary cast of characters to drill down into the underlying machinery of the new political power structures. And the result – a doorstopper of a report covering multiple interconnected issues – damns Facebook not just once or twice but time and time again. It includes a new set of internal Facebook documents published today – from Six4Three, a software development company involved in a bitter legal dispute with Facebook – that show how Facebook was wheeling and dealing with users’ data. How it traded access to their friends’ data with companies prepared to buy its advertising. And how Facebook shut off access for others because it viewed them as “competition”. At one extraordinary point, the report references the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act”, or RICO, the tough US laws drawn up to tackle the mob and organied crime. Could Facebook’s actions towards developers be viewed as RICO offences, the committee asked a Facebook executive. He said no. The report holds the possibility open. Certainly, the emails between executives carry more than a whiff of extortion. “Communicate in one-go to all apps that don’t spend that those permission will be revoked,” says one email. “Communicate to the rest that they need to open on NEKO [mobile ads] $250k a year to maintain access to data.” But it’s the sections concerning foreign interference that are perhaps the most damning. The report accuses Facebook’s chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, of giving a statement to parliament about Russian interference that “we now know … was simply not true”. And it’s the government that stands to be most embarrassed. It has remained almost silent on the subject in the face of an accumulation of evidence detailed here and which the report pulls no punches about: it is as urgent an issue of national security as the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. In one of the most striking sections, it notes that the government’s response to its interim report, a stunningly dry and boring document that dodged all the main issues, drew little attention in Britain. In Russia, though, it was another story. The report pulled the stats from parliament’s website though and found that more people in Moscow (19.8% of visitors) had read it than those in London (17.8%). And it tears apart the government’s official response that it has “not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia”. But it’s the section on AIQ that perhaps goes to the heart of the problem of why the government is so allergic to investigating any of this. AIQ was the Canadian data firm that worked for Vote Leave and the chapter on its activities raises crucial
"Facebook is the New Crapware"
Dear nettimers, a. you have all left Facebook by now (or ages ago), b. you are still on it, c. could not be bothered, d. are busy with more relevant topics. Here is some material in case you want to be uptodate about the social media question. We’re now ten months into the Cambridge Analytica case and things do not look very well for Marc Zuckerberg. In March-April 2018 most of us were still cynical… things would never change. Here at the Institute of Network Cultures we’ve been running the Unlike Us network since 2011--and we can indeed see a significant change over the past year. What still lacks is a concerted effort to identify and promote alternatives. What is clear is that there won't be one… Below are some of the pointers Unlike Us members been collecting over the past two months. Best, Geert Facebook is the new crapware https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/facebook-is-the-new-crapware/ <https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/facebook-is-the-new-crapware/> Technological Sovereignty, Volume 2 http://hacklabbo.indivia.net/book/sobtec2/en/ <http://hacklabbo.indivia.net/book/sobtec2/en/> Leaving Facebook as a religious experience https://medium.com/uncalendared/what-284-days-without-facebook-feels-like-c1ae02bc7ed9 <https://medium.com/uncalendared/what-284-days-without-facebook-feels-like-c1ae02bc7ed9> Reality Check Facebook by Aaron Greenspan (a must-read report) https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/fb.pdf <https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/fb.pdf> Zuckerberg explains his good intentions, one more time https://www.cnet.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-defends-facebook-advertising-model-we-dont-sell-peoples-data/ <https://www.cnet.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-defends-facebook-advertising-model-we-dont-sell-peoples-data/> Life without the tech giants, including youtube videos https://gizmodo.com/life-without-the-tech-giants-1830258056 <https://gizmodo.com/life-without-the-tech-giants-1830258056> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNSp-kzVVhU&index=1&list=PLx1XbvvfIlc4zQgE5ohJA9EJ2NCcGc2QQ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNSp-kzVVhU&index=1&list=PLx1XbvvfIlc4zQgE5ohJA9EJ2NCcGc2QQ> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGyEirsta_0&index=2&list=PLx1XbvvfIlc4zQgE5ohJA9EJ2NCcGc2QQ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGyEirsta_0&index=2&list=PLx1XbvvfIlc4zQgE5ohJA9EJ2NCcGc2QQ> The fall of Facebook has only begun https://medium.com/@13DResearch/the-fall-of-facebook-has-only-begun-9d73a45adc8 <https://medium.com/@13DResearch/the-fall-of-facebook-has-only-begun-9d73a45adc8> (it was reported that 640.000 users in NL left Facebook in 2018) Second thoughts of corporate Silicon Valley pundit Jeff Jarvis on FB https://medium.com/whither-news/facebook-sigh-6c630a7b79a9 <https://medium.com/whither-news/facebook-sigh-6c630a7b79a9> Fortnite was 2018s most important social network https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/21/18152012/fortnite-was-2018s-most-important-social-network <https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/21/18152012/fortnite-was-2018s-most-important-social-network> How Facebook tracks you on Android (even if you don’t have a Facebook account) https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2018/Fahrplan/events/9941.html <https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2018/Fahrplan/events/9941.html> Revealed: how Italy's populists used Facebook to win power https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/17/revealed-how-italy-populists-used-facebook-win-election-matteo-salvini-luigi-di-maio <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/17/revealed-how-italy-populists-used-facebook-win-election-matteo-salvini-luigi-di-maio> After a year from hell, Facebook parties like it's 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/17/facebook-christmas-party-celebration <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/17/facebook-christmas-party-celebration> Is 2019 the year you should finally quit Facebook? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/21/quit-facebook-privacy-scandal-private-messages <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/21/quit-facebook-privacy-scandal-private-messages> How can I remove Google from my life? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/dec/20/how-can-i-remove-google-from-my-life <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/dec/20/how-can-i-remove-google-from-my-life> We all fell for Facebook’s utopianism, but the mask is at last being torn away https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/facebook-utopianism-mask-being-torn-away <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/facebook-utopianism-mask-being-torn-away> Did Facebook Cause Riots in France? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/did-facebook-cause-the-yellow-vest-riots-in-france.html?fbclid=IwAR0jC2L2Ztz63rJrxWF-xfLooSVP3zHPDM38KCXvgztS0S3sE5zknoCoPBI <http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/did-facebook-cause-the
Re: Manipulating individuals, your wife or Jeremy Corbin, by micro-targeting Facebook ads
Dear Felix Stalder, On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 3:43 AM Felix Stalder wrote: > [Throughout the day, I was wondering whether a new service offered by a > company called "The Spinner" was real or satire. Their pitch is the > following: > > > The Spinner* is a service that enables you to control articles > > presented to your wife on the websites she usually visits, in order > > to influence her on a subconscious level to initiate sex. > > https://www.thespinner.net > > This hits so many button about how toxic online ad-tech, and start-up > tech culture more generally, has become, that I was leaning towards > seeing this as satire, I thought it is likely to be a satire, looked at the spinner webpage, didn't leave any information, but a spinner image maliciously replaced my phone's screen saver. Not sure what other controls could be optained by code, if malicious, just when someone merely clicks on a URL. Sivasubramanian M but then it was revealed that Labour Party > campaign also ran a campaign targeting an individual, the party leader > Jeremy Corbin (and his closest associates) trying to warp his perception > of what the party itself was doing. The whole story is below, and most > likely not satire. Felix] > > > Facebook ad micro-targeting can manipulate individual politicians > Anonymous Labour Party official to Tom Baldwin > > > https://theoutline.com/post/5411/facebook-ad-micro-targeting-can-manipulate-individual-politicians > > Caroline Haskins > Jul—16—2018 11:42AM EST > > > At least one political party is avoiding negotiating by using > micro-targeted Facebook ads focused on just the politician and their > inner circle, and the same tool could be used to manipulate people with > major influence on public opinion. During the 2017 U.K. general > elections, Jeremy Corbyn, the incumbent 69-year-old leader of the Labour > Party, wanted to invest heavily in digital ads encouraging voter > registration. Labour Party campaign chiefs thought it was a waste of > money and so decided to trick the incumbent leader of their own party. > > They spent £5,000 on voter registration Facebook ads that met Corbyn’s > demands, but here’s the catch: only Corbyn and his associates could see > them. According to a forthcoming book from Tom Baldwin, a former Labour > communications director, they were individually-targeted, hyper-specific > ads made possible through Facebook’s advertising tools, reports The > Times and The Independent. “If it was there for them [Corbyn and his > associates], they thought it must be there for everyone,” an unnamed > Labour Party official said to Baldwin. “It wasn’t. That’s how targeted > ads can work.” > > Using Facebook’s Custom Audience advertising tool, businesses and > campaigns can “sniper target” people by individually submitting > information that matches Facebook profiles — like names, email > addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, and gender. The tool cannot > target down to a literal individual and requires at least a couple dozen > people for a campaign to run. > > Since a number of political situations have unfolded in the last couple > of years that, in retrospect, were heavily influenced by Facebook, the > company started a political ad archive and significantly raised the bar > on what it will approve as a political ad. But it put these measures in > place only a few weeks ago, and it’s limited to ads targeting areas in > the U.S., meaning that we don’t currently have a side-by-side comparison > of what ads Corbyn and his inner circle were served as opposed to the > general public. The book, Ctrl Alt Delete: How Politics and the Media > Crashed Our Democracy, purports to provide specific examples of what > Corbyn would have seen. > > > On one hand, this is a strange story about how a baby boomer politician > and his closest political buddies did not know what ads were being > served on behalf of their own campaign. (Granted, the structure of the > U.K. government means that party elections have astronomically low > financial stakes. £4.3 million was spent across all U.K. political > parties for the 2017 election; compare that to the $10 billion > advertising price tag for the 2016 U.S. presidential election.) But more > importantly, it illustrates how Facebook’s “sniper targeting” > advertising tools can be used to infiltrate the thoughts of major public > figures and their closest allies, and in a successful scenario, > manipulate their thinking. As of May, Facebook has new thresholds for > political ads, which broadly includes anything related to a candidate, > election, vote, legislative issue. But anything that doesn’t fit into > that definition of “political” will remain relatively unregulated. > Cle
Manipulating individuals, your wife or Jeremy Corbin, by micro-targeting Facebook ads
[Throughout the day, I was wondering whether a new service offered by a company called "The Spinner" was real or satire. Their pitch is the following: > The Spinner* is a service that enables you to control articles > presented to your wife on the websites she usually visits, in order > to influence her on a subconscious level to initiate sex. https://www.thespinner.net This hits so many button about how toxic online ad-tech, and start-up tech culture more generally, has become, that I was leaning towards seeing this as satire, but then it was revealed that Labour Party campaign also ran a campaign targeting an individual, the party leader Jeremy Corbin (and his closest associates) trying to warp his perception of what the party itself was doing. The whole story is below, and most likely not satire. Felix] Facebook ad micro-targeting can manipulate individual politicians Anonymous Labour Party official to Tom Baldwin https://theoutline.com/post/5411/facebook-ad-micro-targeting-can-manipulate-individual-politicians Caroline Haskins Jul—16—2018 11:42AM EST At least one political party is avoiding negotiating by using micro-targeted Facebook ads focused on just the politician and their inner circle, and the same tool could be used to manipulate people with major influence on public opinion. During the 2017 U.K. general elections, Jeremy Corbyn, the incumbent 69-year-old leader of the Labour Party, wanted to invest heavily in digital ads encouraging voter registration. Labour Party campaign chiefs thought it was a waste of money and so decided to trick the incumbent leader of their own party. They spent £5,000 on voter registration Facebook ads that met Corbyn’s demands, but here’s the catch: only Corbyn and his associates could see them. According to a forthcoming book from Tom Baldwin, a former Labour communications director, they were individually-targeted, hyper-specific ads made possible through Facebook’s advertising tools, reports The Times and The Independent. “If it was there for them [Corbyn and his associates], they thought it must be there for everyone,” an unnamed Labour Party official said to Baldwin. “It wasn’t. That’s how targeted ads can work.” Using Facebook’s Custom Audience advertising tool, businesses and campaigns can “sniper target” people by individually submitting information that matches Facebook profiles — like names, email addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, and gender. The tool cannot target down to a literal individual and requires at least a couple dozen people for a campaign to run. Since a number of political situations have unfolded in the last couple of years that, in retrospect, were heavily influenced by Facebook, the company started a political ad archive and significantly raised the bar on what it will approve as a political ad. But it put these measures in place only a few weeks ago, and it’s limited to ads targeting areas in the U.S., meaning that we don’t currently have a side-by-side comparison of what ads Corbyn and his inner circle were served as opposed to the general public. The book, Ctrl Alt Delete: How Politics and the Media Crashed Our Democracy, purports to provide specific examples of what Corbyn would have seen. On one hand, this is a strange story about how a baby boomer politician and his closest political buddies did not know what ads were being served on behalf of their own campaign. (Granted, the structure of the U.K. government means that party elections have astronomically low financial stakes. £4.3 million was spent across all U.K. political parties for the 2017 election; compare that to the $10 billion advertising price tag for the 2016 U.S. presidential election.) But more importantly, it illustrates how Facebook’s “sniper targeting” advertising tools can be used to infiltrate the thoughts of major public figures and their closest allies, and in a successful scenario, manipulate their thinking. As of May, Facebook has new thresholds for political ads, which broadly includes anything related to a candidate, election, vote, legislative issue. But anything that doesn’t fit into that definition of “political” will remain relatively unregulated. Clearly, this has huge implications for businesses and companies struggling with internal division. Or, say one has the email addresses and phone numbers of Donald Trump Jr. and a few of his buddies (t...@theoutline.com). Don Junior is extremely active on social media and frequently likes and interacts with targeted ads. If one wanted to get a message to Don, a Custom Audience and some carefully-chosen text over a picture of a luxury yacht or smoked piece of meat would do the trick. (These are, to the best of our knowledge, real Instagram ad interests of Donald Trump Junior, as unveiled by a Slate investigation.) This is a facetious example, but the tool could be used to generate real harm if put into the hands of people with the power to spread conspiracy theories, su
Re: Towards a Non-facebook
David Garcia wrote: Not a day passes without another strange event as a consequence of > of the fact that digital platforms are no longer simply -facilitating - > recording - analysing- the world but Increasingly INTERVENING. > Furthermore as these interventions are overwhelmingly > automated and therefore instaneous, we see a collapse in the > tradional (deliberative) space between knowing and acting. > The epistemic and existentialist consequences of the dissapearence of this > space is as yet unknown. They are there to be both feared and explored.. > > This is true. The unintended social consequences of algorithmic routines have begun interacting with people who are also caught in preexisting social routines, and that interaction produces yet more unintended consequences as the algorithms redploy themselves within the new context. A spiral of expansive acceleration then ensues. You can see it in social movments, in ad campaigns, in politics (which is perhaps redundant, after ad campaigns) and presumably it is occurring in other algorithm-governed interactions, maybe in worker management routines, or on large platforms like Uber, or in real-time traffic control systems, etc. Social movements in the US have been riding this tiger pretty well, from Black Lives Matter to Me Too. The Trump movement has also ridden it very effectively. In none of those cases, however, is there a pure network model at work, where all consequences can be deduced from the behavior of the computer systems. Instead, their inputs disturbs the (often horrible) dynamic equilibrium of some existing social set-up. The intervening algos provoke momentary volcanoes in what the philsopher Castoriadis would have called the existing "social-historical magma." So the conflicts and grieds of the past keep erupting in new hot spots and in new ways, touching and involving people whom they formerly did not (or only did in a very stable way). The locals in Hawai'i are OK with the volcano erupting, because Pele (the volcano) is what made the island. The left has to take this attitude, otherwise we will fall into unconscious reactionary dynamics, which has happened to the right already. It's spot on to say that the (unintended) consequences shold be both feared and explored. Because of them, deep aspirations and deep horrors are bursting into the present. To revel in them is naive. To turn away is dangerous. thanks for some very clear thinking, Brian # 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: Towards a Non-facebook
Thanks happy to join Pit’s initiative > Lets call it #non-facebook. > https://www.facebook.com/groups/217513475509054/ I am interpreting Pit's challenge to the tactics of anti-Facebook movement as being based on a recognition that we live in a world where the digital and the social are so entangled that (as recent events have shown) not even Facebook is in control of Facebook. This combined with hard reality of the 'network effect’ makes it a bad moment to leave the internal FB territory un-contested. Not a day passes without another strange event as a consequence of of the fact that digital platforms are no longer simply -facilitating - recording - analysing- the world but Increasingly INTERVENING. Furthermore as these interventions are overwhelmingly automated and therefore instaneous, we see a collapse in the tradional (deliberative) space between knowing and acting. The epistemic and existentialist consequences of the dissapearence of this space is as yet unknown. They are there to be both feared and explored.. This erasure is a likely factor behind what Michal Seemann calls "The Digital Tailspin" with his claim of an era of structural inteterminacy and the exponential rise in so called "black swan" events. There is no more need for Zukerberg’s edict for his employees "to move fast and break things”. Its the sytems (not only the sisters) that “are doing it for themselves”. Some artists and sociologists .. Constant Dullart (his army of FB bots), Erica Scourti (her ghosted biography based on her data-body) and Noortje Marres in her many papers and book Digital Sociology that are treating these platforms not simply as instrumental space (where we have a fixed idea of what something is for) but as open-ended. As Marres wrote “not treating social relations and activity as a given and unchanging but as a set of activities, patterns and forms that may shift expand and are thus transformable, digital technologies can be said to invite an experimental approach to sociality”. David Garcia On 25 May 2018, at 03:38, Pit Schultz wrote: # 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: Towards a Non-facebook (Pit Schultz)
Kristoffer Gansing wrote: As someone who > never joined facebook in the first place, I can’t help wondering what > then to do. Is a facebook user strike strictly for users, since we have > frequently been told you cannot really be outside facebook whether you > are indeed active on it or not. In other words, does suspending your > account for a week really amount to a strike? > > I'm in the same situation, and felt that same double perplexity at the end of the text. Seems to me we don't live in a Facebook society but one of state surveillance capitalism, epitomized by FB but irreducible to it. What I found great in Pit's text was the line, "Today you are told that somewhere else, with a different type of media, speech will be authentic and free again, just to stop you from waking up and stating the obvious." The obvious is that it's not all about speech or even freedom. It's about living in a particular kind of society whose norms and constraints have become suicidal, beneath a wierd veil of euphoria that again, is epitomized by FB > But, the larger question I would > like to ask here is if your critique then does not indeed dismiss > artistic and much post-digital activist practice per se? Look, Pit has a sharp tongue for sure (I'll never forget when he said a project of mine was like "early Grand Theft Auto") but the most important thing that comes out of it is, can you have a real internal critique of this ageing new media schtick, whatever it's called now, post-digital artistic activism? Because cultural creation thrives on self-critique, when it's the kind that shakes a person out of their usual thing. The "extimate existence" that you bring up further along sounds ecstatic for sure, but it also sounds like a very familiar micro-conversation among entitled sophisticates. In my view that's not what people need or even want these days. The networked social theories and subjectivist philosophies of the 90s/2000s had a lot to give, but it's time to use that stuff and not just spin out more variations. You say 'no new universalism to avoid again committing severe violence,' and I understand what's behind that statement. But the severe violence is being committed right now and if the way people relate to politics does not change, it's going to be inexorable. Time was when, depending on country, you could emigrate to America or Canada or the EU in hopes of escaping your local nightmare - generations did it, including yours truly - but it looks like those times are over. There's an outside for sure, but it's not just extimate, it's evanescent, and like good drugs it has the best effects only once in a while. I don't mean to diss, I want to get at the core of what you're saying. Current social movements are made up of weirdos and deviants and freaks of all kinds, including hyperintellectuals, whose exorbitant subjectivities are so threatened that they can resonate with people who just wanted to be ordinary, until they found out they were getting crushed by the ordinary state of things. You know that connection when you see it. The fancy language falls away and the sophistication is in the entanglement of radically different forms of resistance. How to bring art into that stuff? Hey, maybe in media it looks like early Grand Theft Auto! Just kidding, but anyway, thanks for the compliment, Pit, and good debating with you, Kristoffer - BH # 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: Towards a Non-facebook (Pit Schultz)
Pit wrote: > Towards a Non-facebook > a pretext > > > The current facebook debate is a chance to get your act together and > get organized - just a little. Thanks for this call to action Pit, much needed in these times of inflated and often misinformed social media critique. As someone who never joined facebook in the first place, I can’t help wondering what then to do. Is a facebook user strike strictly for users, since we have frequently been told you cannot really be outside facebook whether you are indeed active on it or not. In other words, does suspending your account for a week really amount to a strike? Your article touches upon many of the blind spots and deficiencies of the current drive to create a more “ethical” and/or “transparent” digital society, i.e. the points about interoperability leading to great arguments about the need to change education and the referral to a possible deindividualization of the social media model. What I can’t help find both fascinating and slightly discomforting however is that you, as a long-time local radio activist and co-founder of this list, start out by so vehemently dismissing those who are engaged in imagining and sometimes designing the outside. Don’t get me wrong, I think one of the cornerstones of nettime and critical net culture has always been its resistance to the naive dreams of the cyberlibertarians and I think your suggestion here that critical art practice might operate a similar reality diversion pretty healthy, especially when regarded in the context of a larger “industry of critique” that starts to get absurd when you see it in connection with the rise of explicit cultural mechanisms (in organisations and at events) of disarming everything negative (techlash notwithstanding). But, the larger question I would like to ask here is if your critique then does not indeed dismiss artistic and much post-digital activist practice per se? If we have to give up imagining the outside altogether, why then also still have what you call “collective agencies of real resistance: running archives, sharing strange interests and hobbies, collecting and filtering what has been easily neglected or forgotten.” Would any of that even exist in a world which ceased imagining an outside to facebook or any other dominant mode of social interaction? To escape totalitarian thinking, one should not boil it down to two movements, one fighting against and one from within. Both and many more struggles have to be allowed to co-exist and continue to contradict each other from a truly “radical democratic point of view” (if we by that also mean agonistic). Posing a new universalism is catchy and seems attractive, but hampered by a nostalgia for a world that’s not possible to simplify like that any longer, without (again) committing severe violence, and we should probably rather look into what Povinelli has called “extimate existence” , considering entanglements and differences in order to create interoperability from there. So, please reformulate and help me strike against facebook also if I’m not already part of it. /Kristoffer # 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:
Towards a Non-facebook
Towards a Non-facebook a pretext The current facebook debate is a chance to get your act together and get organized - just a little. What does it mean to get dis-, re- or co-organized? To the worse, or to the better? A further 'balkanisation', a migration to the cryptoanarchist waste of resources, blockchain-nations as a refresh of the independent cyberspace myth or the various academic art conferences giving a place for certain representative counter movements in order to map and neutralize them. The culture war is probably a trap, allowing single career paths instead of lifting up the standards on a larger scale. This counts especially for the branch of critical media art, which has buffered away criticality from the rest of the art world for too long. While often fruitful and interesting on the lower layers, it gets thinner and weaker the higher you get. The neoliberal call for self-diversification is a part of a parapolitical neutralisation effort to keep away resistant forces from where they could do real harm and lead to systemic change. Synchronize and Change Facebook from Within It is understandable to leave facebook because it is dull, depressing, boring - but the same probably counts for your workplace, for the compromise you had to make to rent an affordable flat and for the places you need to go shopping or studying. Even if there are alternatives in the physical urban world, the eco system of myriads of websites, linux distros, apps you never have seen and tracks you never will listen to is part of the long tail myth of consumerist choice. Culturally, the unification under one media platform, such as the book or the internet, has been revolutionary in terms of "consciousness building". Today you are told that somewhere else, with a different type of media, speech will be authentic and free again, just to stop you from waking up and stating the obvious. The existence of pluralism and diversity depends on the conditions of the surrounding it derives from. The current platformization is adding new application layers on top of the web. One can dream and fight for a niche in between, or fight for the change and opening of these platforms in fundamental terms of democratic design principles. Both approaches have pros and cons. Since we have no better political system architectures available, we could stick with embedded democracy and discuss the specifications, when looking at the complete lack of these features in todays online infrastructure. Democratisation or Exodus as Hegemonial Choice To run away from facebook headlessly and to leave it before being censored, kicked out or shut off, is ill advised from a radical democratic point of view. Maybe it would be possible, in a Gramscian way, to doubt the absolutistic public sphere that facebook has erected. But going along back to the alternatives, such as to the municipal level of creative, digital and global cities, or to speculative cryptoanarchist blockchain based currencies, or to the ghost towns of abandoned homepages in the dark net, or to countless masculinist linux projects which reinvented the wheel, as well as to various counter-platforms that clone and modify the UX of facebook in one or the other way, it turns out, that they have been proven as dead-end devolutions. Compared to the mass consumerist wasteland of facebook, they are still interesting tactical forms of excess. Due to their false promise of offering a strategy and not just an individualist tactical sidestep, these outside positions are certainly not inherently better ones. Neither they are inherently bad - they're just no solution. And they are certainly not politically or theoretically smarter than trying to change facebook on facebook. From a media theoretical point of view it seems blind to #deletefacebook, since the deletion confirms, that facebook reduces you to an effect of the medium. You can accept tacitly not to be able to change the channel from within the channel, being in it debating it, critiquing it, protesting against it or subverting it, or taking any distanced meta position from within the medium. From a political point of view, the spectrum of protest forms includes to excercise the right to delete yourself (#loeschdich), and there are various existing channels to discuss strategic common goals in the aftermath of the CA scandal. Not to confuse the means of change with the goal itself, we need to achieve more rights, more, or at least some, democratic freedom, to transform this powerful platform in an exemplary way. Instead of dispersing the platform into micropolitical niches which ultimately risks to neutralize it´s potentials, we could form new brilliant alliances of productive alienations. Remain Strategy By taking a virtual outside position, that can be e.g. excentric, external, artistic or theoretical, one cannot neglect, that even the most underprivileged and precarious existence will be impossible outside of
Re: Please support the first global facebook user strike
dear Anni, On Sat, 05 May 2018, Anni Roolf wrote: >Thank you for the pros and cons. Did you guys also read the >medium article? [1]bit.ly/facebreak2018 In my experience it’s >hard to consider such a campaign in advance. To join it can only >be a piece of the puzzle, is an experimentation process and will >always have unintended — positive and negative — results. thanks for this initiative, I really agree with you this experimentation process is important and shouldn't be seen as a "reformist" approach to the problem. We are dealing with a complex body of organisms whose vital functions have never been mapped, rather concealed from us and for which I believe angiographic experiments as this one are also a possible intervention, besides euthanasia, and can inform and inspire future developments. I have been reluctanctly on FB for years, connected with many people, interacting mostly via bitlbee (messenger to IRC gateway). These days is becoming obvious to me (just from a sixth sense no need for metrics) that FB has been already abandoned by many people over the CA scandal and other campaigns. Interactions over potentially interesting topics have shrinked a big deal. Things are changing. Greetings from Dakar, where in the OFF part of the Biennale we had a mindblowing debate on "decolonising internet" hosted by Ker Thiossane, with Marion, Oulimata, prof. Tonda and others. In this context of "non-aligned utopias" and Afropixel festival to me is also clear noone believes in the services coming from the so called FANG conglomerate and there is big potential for new, ethical, decolonialised media platforms. ciao -- Denis Roio a.k.a. Jaromil http://Dyne.org think &do tank Ph.D, CTO & co-foundersoftware to empower communities Book keynotes, lectures, workshops: https://jaromil.dyne.org ⚷ crypto κρυπτο крипто गुप्त् 加密 האנוסים المشفره GnuPG: 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10 # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
Well, I quit Facebook on Quit Facebook Day back in May 2010 already, and such activism today seems like going on a diet without much changing your eating behaviour in the long run. https://schneeschmelze.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/facebook-is-a-closed-shop-xvi-schlus/ I don't have any more social media handles ever since, and, by the way, my friends have neither. Most of those still active on Facebook etc. do it as a business only. However, I'm not into such businesses. Amongst others, I teach cyberpolitics in adult education, and I find that most of those who attend my classes never joined a social network in the first place. They are rather critical of such platforms and want to find out more about how they work, what is their impact on society, and what they are doing with people's data. So, e.g., we talk about how to use Tor and how to minimise the amount of data that is collected about you and other people. I think that education matters when you counter the monetisation of personal data. Best, Jürgen. Am 05.05.18 um 13:37 Uhr schrieb Anni Roolf: > Thank you for the pros and cons. Did you guys also read the medium > article? bit.ly/facebreak2018 <http://bit.ly/facebreak2018> > > In my experience it’s hard to consider such a campaign in advance. To > join it can only be a piece of the puzzle, is an experimentation process > and will always have unintended — positive and negative — results. If > one is still (!) part of fb and can agree with the message of the > strike, why not try it (in the sense of experimentation)? A big > mainstream of people is still there, try to forget the mistrust against > the platform in daily business, also because a lot of them are already > professionally dependent from fb (e.g. for Marketing and Event > Promotion). Concerning this target groups it would be already a big > success to shake the system for some days and to let grow the doubt, if > fb is really the big mainstream platform of the future. # 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:
Fwd: Re: Please support the first global facebook user strike
Well, I quit Facebook on Quit Facebook Day back in May 2010 already, and such activism today seems like going on a diet without much changing your eating behaviour in the long run. https://schneeschmelze.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/facebook-is-a-closed-shop-xvi-schlus/ I don't have any more social media handles ever since, and, by the way, my friends have neither. Most of those still active on Facebook etc. do it as a business only. However, I'm not into such businesses. Amongst others, I teach cyberpolitics in adult education, and I find that most of those who attend my classes never joined a social network in the first place. They are rather critical of such platforms and want to find out more about how they work, what is their impact on society, and what they are doing with people's data. So, e.g., we talk about how to use Tor and how to minimise the amount of data that is collected about you and other people. I think that education matters when you counter the monetisation of personal data. Best, Jürgen. Am 05.05.18 um 13:37 Uhr schrieb Anni Roolf: > Thank you for the pros and cons. Did you guys also read the medium > article? bit.ly/facebreak2018 <http://bit.ly/facebreak2018> > > In my experience it’s hard to consider such a campaign in advance. To > join it can only be a piece of the puzzle, is an experimentation process > and will always have unintended — positive and negative — results. If > one is still (!) part of fb and can agree with the message of the > strike, why not try it (in the sense of experimentation)? A big > mainstream of people is still there, try to forget the mistrust against > the platform in daily business, also because a lot of them are already > professionally dependent from fb (e.g. for Marketing and Event > Promotion). Concerning this target groups it would be already a big > success to shake the system for some days and to let grow the doubt, if > fb is really the big mainstream platform of the future. # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
Well, I quit Facebook on Quit Facebook Day back in May 2010 already, and such activism today seems like going on a diet without much changing your eating behaviour in the long run. https://schneeschmelze.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/facebook-is-a-closed-shop-xvi-schlus/ I don't have any more social media handles ever since, and, by the way, my friends have neither. Most of those still active on Facebook etc. do it as a business only. However, I'm not into such businesses. Amongst others, I teach cyberpolitics in adult education, and I find that most of those who attend my classes never joined a social network in the first place. They are rather critical of such platforms and want to find out more about how they work, what is their impact on society, and what they are doing with people's data. So, e.g., we talk about how to use Tor and how to minimise the amount of data that is collected about you and other people. I think that education matters when you counter the monetisation of personal data. Best, Jürgen. Am 05.05.18 um 13:37 Uhr schrieb Anni Roolf: > Thank you for the pros and cons. Did you guys also read the medium > article? bit.ly/facebreak2018 <http://bit.ly/facebreak2018> > > In my experience it’s hard to consider such a campaign in advance. To > join it can only be a piece of the puzzle, is an experimentation process > and will always have unintended — positive and negative — results. If > one is still (!) part of fb and can agree with the message of the > strike, why not try it (in the sense of experimentation)? A big > mainstream of people is still there, try to forget the mistrust against > the platform in daily business, also because a lot of them are already > professionally dependent from fb (e.g. for Marketing and Event > Promotion). Concerning this target groups it would be already a big > success to shake the system for some days and to let grow the doubt, if > fb is really the big mainstream platform of the future. # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
Thank you for the pros and cons. Did you guys also read the medium article? bit.ly/facebreak2018 In my experience it’s hard to consider such a campaign in advance. To join it can only be a piece of the puzzle, is an experimentation process and will always have unintended — positive and negative — results. If one is still (!) part of fb and can agree with the message of the strike, why not try it (in the sense of experimentation)? A big mainstream of people is still there, try to forget the mistrust against the platform in daily business, also because a lot of them are already professionally dependent from fb (e.g. for Marketing and Event Promotion). Concerning this target groups it would be already a big success to shake the system for some days and to let grow the doubt, if fb is really the big mainstream platform of the future. Am 05.05.2018 um 12:38 schrieb olivier auber : > A good day to make your bill to Facebook? > Why? Because Facebook stole your digital labor. > The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to > bring with you a summary archive. But this archive is empty! > > It does not contain: > - Links included in your personal posts (just that!). > - Links that are supposed to be saved (disappeared!) > - Discussions following your personal posts. > - Comments left on other posts. > - Links of posts that you repost. > > Facebook retains about 90% of the data we are interested in! (see Where can I > find my Facebook data?) > In addition, the facebook archive is useless for other online services > contrary to the recommendation of the GDPR > > #MyFacbookInvoice #BalanceTaFacture : https://goo.gl/EEDDcv > #MyFacebookInvoiceData (US$ 700,000,000 by now) : > http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=MyFacebookInvoiceData > > O > > >> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Anni Roolf wrote: >> Here's the call: >> Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of >> our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out >> of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 #newpower >> bit.ly/facebreak2018 >> >> Let's make this go viral. >> >> Best, Anni >> >> -- >> Anni Roolf MBA >> >> Projektentwicklerin >> Innovationsmanagerin >> Community Strategist >> >> 0179 4581509 >> >> # 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: > > > # 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: # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
A good day to make your bill to Facebook? Why? Because Facebook stole your digital labor. The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to bring with you a summary archive. But this archive is empty! It does not contain: - Links included in your personal posts (just that!). - Links that are supposed to be saved (disappeared!) - Discussions following your personal posts. - Comments left on other posts. - Links of posts that you repost. Facebook retains about 90% of the data we are interested in! (see Where can I find my Facebook data? <https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254>) In addition, the facebook archive is useless for other online services contrary to the recommendation of the GDPR #MyFacbookInvoice #BalanceTaFacture : https://goo.gl/EEDDcv #MyFacebookInvoiceData (US$ 700,000,000 by now) : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=MyFacebookInvoiceData O <http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=MyFacebookInvoiceData> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Anni Roolf wrote: > Here's the call: > > Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of > our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out > of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 > <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/facebreak2018?source=feed_text> # > newpower <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/newpower?source=feed_text> > bit.ly/facebreak2018 > > Let's make this go viral. > > Best, Anni > > -- > Anni Roolf MBA > > Projektentwicklerin > Innovationsmanagerin > Community Strategist > > 0179 4581509 > > > # 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: > # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
A good day to make your bill to Facebook? Why? Because Facebook stole your digital labor. The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to bring with you a summary archive. But this archive is empty! It does not contain: - Links included in your personal posts (just that!). - Links that are supposed to be saved (disappeared!) - Discussions following your personal posts. - Comments left on other posts. - Links of posts that you repost. Facebook retains about 90% of the data we are interested in! (see Where can I find my Facebook data? <https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254>) In addition, the facebook archive is useless for other online services contrary to the recommendation of the GDPR #MyFacbookInvoice #BalanceTaFacture : https://goo.gl/EEDDcv #MyFacebookInvoiceData (US$ 700,000,000 by now) : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=MyFacebookInvoiceData O <http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=MyFacebookInvoiceData> Olivier Auber On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Anni Roolf wrote: > Here's the call: > > Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of > our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out > of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 > <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/facebreak2018?source=feed_text> # > newpower <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/newpower?source=feed_text> > bit.ly/facebreak2018 > > Let's make this go viral. > > Best, Anni > > -- > Anni Roolf MBA > > Projektentwicklerin > Innovationsmanagerin > Community Strategist > > 0179 4581509 > > > # 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: > # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
On 2018-05-05 11:20, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > I agree if the goal is to learn about facebook's reaction. But you are > not addressing the root of the problem ie, the whole business model of > facebook depends on collecting and monetizing the user data. What > change/response are you expecting from facebook? Do you expect them to > change their business model? > > I think setting up an event in facebook can be helpful to see how they > react. In the midst of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where public and political pressure has been higher than ever, FB posted another record quarter, increased its users and profits. It's inconceivable that such a strike will hurt Facebook in anyway. Not the least, because contrary to workers striking at a factory, the pain is inflicted primarily on the people doing the strike, rather than the company. Also, these are problems, exactly for the reasons Praveen stated, that cannot be solved by voluntary action, neither on the side of the users (lack of options, collective action problem) or the company (no incentives, on the contrary). The only thing is can achieve is to alert politicians that their constituents want action, that is, regulation. This assumes that democracy still works as advertised, which it doesn't, but it's still worth insisting that it should. All the best. Felix -- | http://felix.openflows.com |OPEN PGP: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x0C9FF2AC signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
> On May 5, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Anni Roolf wrote: > > Here's the call: > Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of our > user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out of > Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 #newpower > bit.ly/facebreak2018 > > Let's make this go viral. > > Best, Anni > -- > Anni Roolf MBA > > Projektentwicklerin > Innovationsmanagerin > Community Strategist When I woke up to this, I thought it was the saddest thing I had read in a long time. Coffee and cigarettes later, I knew there is no time for sadness, no time to waste, and the proposition is actually quite funny. It's the inverse of the "Turing Test Tarpit" (1) I suggested recently: After a few weeks of increased virality, the Facebook Liberation Front *leaves* Facebook and Instagram - only to be glued to Twitter, most likely, to self-surveil their trending hashtags - and FB and IG suddenly become inhabitable for a week. I'm all for it. Even more so if that gives me seven consecutive days during which I don't have to read about the "disrespect" for personal data - you just posted your phone number to a public mailing list! - or think about the "spirit" of user agreements. It still makes me sad, but one can find consolation in literature. Like in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It's the anthropocene, stupid! This species was doomed from the beginning, and one must cherish every short and unlikely blip of non-idiocy. Because thanks to Douglas Adams we know that the "humans", contrary to popular belief, are not the fittest: not the descendants of apes, but the offspring of social media sanitizers, innovation managers and communication strategists. P.S.: Obviously, I don't know you, and had we met in person, we might have discovered many areas of alignment, or countless issues where it's me who is braindead. I have nothing against you personally. I have something against the proposition you're circulating, politically. (1) https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1804/msg00091.html # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
On ശ, മേയ് 5, 2018 at 2:40 വൈകു, Anni Roolf wrote: Why it makes sense for me to support the strike as a still facebook user? Raising awareness within the system, giving a hopefully powerful sign that there's a big mistrust of the users, observing how the system reacts (especially if the strike is powerful), letting fb users who are not participating think why they don't strike (feeling the dependence), observing possible sanctions of fb on the strikers: e.g. I thought about setting up a fb event to spread the word; will I be sanctioned for that action? I think, in case this can be a good step to leave the system and to test its power before leaving. I agree if the goal is to learn about facebook's reaction. But you are not addressing the root of the problem ie, the whole business model of facebook depends on collecting and monetizing the user data. What change/response are you expecting from facebook? Do you expect them to change their business model? I think setting up an event in facebook can be helpful to see how they react. I agree, that it's consequent to delete and leave fb now without strike, but I think, that it can be powerful too to set a political and visible sign. The "battle" is taking place on different grounds; different strategies can augment each other. # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
Why it makes sense for me to support the strike as a still facebook user? Raising awareness within the system, giving a hopefully powerful sign that there's a big mistrust of the users, observing how the system reacts (especially if the strike is powerful), letting fb users who are not participating think why they don't strike (feeling the dependence), observing possible sanctions of fb on the strikers: e.g. I thought about setting up a fb event to spread the word; will I be sanctioned for that action? I think, in case this can be a good step to leave the system and to test its power before leaving. I agree, that it's consequent to delete and leave fb now without strike, but I think, that it can be powerful too to set a political and visible sign. The "battle" is taking place on different grounds; different strategies can augment each other. Best, Anni Anni Roolf MBA Projektentwicklerin Innovationsmanagerin Community Strategist 0179 4581509 Am 05.05.18 um 10:46 schrieb Karin Spaink: For those looking for an alternative to FB, try WeMe,com. No ad, no trackers, no bullshit. On 5 May 2018, at 10:01, Patrice Riemens wrote: I thought we'd be going out of FB altogether. - K - # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
For those looking for an alternative to FB, try WeMe,com. No ad, no trackers, no bullshit. > On 5 May 2018, at 10:01, Patrice Riemens wrote: > > I thought we'd be going out of FB altogether. - K - -- Cats know how to obtain food without labour, shelter without confinement, and love without penalties. - WL George # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
For those looking for an alternative to FB, try WeMe,com. No ad, no trackers, no bullshit. > On 5 May 2018, at 10:01, Patrice Riemens wrote: > > I thought we'd be going out of FB altogether. - K - -- Cats know how to obtain food without labour, shelter without confinement, and love without penalties. - WL George # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
On ശ, മേയ് 5, 2018 at 1:25 വൈകു, Anni Roolf wrote: Here's the call: Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 #newpower bit.ly/facebreak2018 Let's make this go viral. I'd recommend a complete deletion instead. Use a decentralized social network where you don't have to depend on such monopolies instead. # 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: Please support the first global facebook user strike
I thought we'd be going out of FB altogether. But then everything is relative ... Cheerio, p+7D! (QR Circei in GoT: "I spend a number days at a ... to get it right" Brother: "several days?" QR Circei: " well, the best part of an afternoon" ...) On 2018-05-05 09:55, Anni Roolf wrote: Here's the call: Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 [1] #newpower [2] bit.ly/facebreak2018 [3] Let's make this go viral. Best, Anni -- Anni Roolf MBA Projektentwicklerin Innovationsmanagerin Community Strategist 0179 4581509 Links: -- [1] https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/facebreak2018?source=feed_text [2] https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/newpower?source=feed_text [3] http://bit.ly/facebreak2018 # 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: # 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:
Please support the first global facebook user strike
Here's the call: Facebook has disrespected our personal data and disregarded the spirit of our user agreements. To demonstrate our collective power as users, log out of Facebook and Instagram May 25 – June 1. #facebreak2018 <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/facebreak2018?source=feed_text> #newpower <https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/newpower?source=feed_text> bit.ly/facebreak2018 <http://bit.ly/facebreak2018> Let's make this go viral. Best, Anni -- Anni Roolf MBA Projektentwicklerin Innovationsmanagerin Community Strategist 0179 4581509 # 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:
Un-friend my Heart - Ilana Gershin on Facebook
Un-friend my Heart - Revisiting Ilana Gershin on Facebook Despite being nearly a decade old its a good time to take another look at the work of anthropologist Ilana Gershin’s work The Ethics of Disconection in Neo-liberal Age on Fb pioneering role of schooling a generation in becoming entrapraneurs of the self (Foucault).. Gershin’s articles and book provides a vison of Facebook as a near perfect mirror the neo-liberal vision of the market as an information processor more powerful than any human individual or collective intellect (Mirowski). We could call it Thatcher/Reagan's all knowing “deity" whose universal catechism remains “you can’t buck the market”. Just as we can never know as much as the market knows, so we as individuals can never know ourselves as well as Facebook knows us. As neccesarily flawed. In an information society Its our equivalent of original sin. In this atomised world any misfortune is our fault alone any victory owes nothing to the collective. The self is our responsibility a mere aglomeration of interchaneable parts, packets of truth, that render privacy a fiction. Our only task is to continuously assemble and disassemble in response to the universal metric of likes. FB is the near perfect embodiment of the market economy transfigured into the market society. What could possible go wrong. # 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:
Un-friend my Heart - Ilana Gershin on Facebook
Despite being nearly a decade old its a good time to take another look at the work of anthropologist Ilana Gershin’s work The Ethics of Disconection in Neo-liberal Age on Facebook’s pioneering role of educating a generation in becoming entrapraneurs of the self (Foucault).. Gershin’s articles and book provides a vison of Facebook as a near perfect mirror the neo-liberalism vision of the market as an information processor more powerful than any human individual or collective intellect (Mirowski). We could call it the Thatcher/Reagan “deity" whose universal catechism remains “you can’t buck the market”. Just as we can never know as much as the market knows, so we as individuals can never know ourselves as well as Facebook knows us. As neccesarily flawed intellects in an information society Its our equivalent of original sin. In this atomised world any misfortune is our fault alone any victor owes nothing to the collective. The self a mere aglomeration of interchaneable parts, packets of truth, we must continuously assemble and disassemble in response to the universal metric of likes. FB is the near perfect embodiment of the market economy transfigured into the market society. What could possible go wrong. # 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: Quit Facebook: Open letter to Yann LeCun
hehe, full data portability seems impossible until a symmetrical network protocol arises, but it seems a good pretext to may people think about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0sX6j5D_c O Olivier Auber On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < dante.mon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Olivier > > About upcoming data portability ? > > https://euobserver.com/digital/137977 > > " As of 25 May 2018, EU citizens will have a new legal right that will > help them switch digital services. > It is called the right to data portability. " > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_portability > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 18:50 olivier auber wrote: > >> Open letter to Yann LeCun, former Professor at College de France, Head of >> Research in Artificial Intelligence at Facebook. >> >> From Olivier Auber, researcher, Free University of Brussels (VUB) >> >> Dear Yann >> >> as a researcher as you are too, but in another area, that is Natural >> Intelligence (NI), I would like to address you publicly to let you know >> that I'm leaving Facebook, probably definitely. >> >> The reason is simple. Facebook is obviously a powerful tool of >> communication. Many researchers I work with have become accustomed to using >> it without asking too much questions for their informal exchanges. The >> conversations that are conducted there are sometimes futile, but often also >> of the greatest interest. >> >> But I realize that these conversations, in a way, no longer belong to us >> when they are conducted on Facebook! >> >> The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to >> bring with you a summary archive. But this archive does not contain: >> >> - links included in your personal posts (just that!) >> - discussions following your personal posts. >> - Comments left on other posts >> - the links of posts that you republish. >> - your address book (you get the names, not the mails or other >> coordinates theoretically shared with you) >> >> In short, it's a real hostage taking! >> >> In other words, Facebook looks like a sort of Far West saloon in which >> alcohol would be free. If you go in, not to drink, but to simply chat with >> your friends, you realize when you go out that your conversations and your >> address book no longer belong to you. They belong to the boss of the >> saloon! To top it off, the boss forbids you to say goodbye one by one to >> your friends and retrieve their details. Personal messages are indeed >> blocked after a few hundred! >> >> In short, by this open letter, I wish to alert my colleagues and more >> generally all professional or independent intellectual workers. Do not post >> your ideas on Facebook! Do not lead any interesting conversation on >> Facebook! Instead, choose to chat on free distributed social networks such >> as Diaspora or Mastodon. Choose shared intelligence platforms like >> Seenthis. In particular, my friends, independent researchers or independent >> artists, do not wait until Mark Zuckerberg, enriched to the extreme by your >> free work, wants to pay you a basic income. He has no legitimacy to do >> that! Instead, experiment with distributed free money creation networks >> such as Duniter. >> >> Dear Yann, to conclude, I do not doubt that thanks to your talent and >> that of the researchers you have gathered, Facebook can one day realize the >> most beautiful Artificial Intelligence. On this day, however, by behaving >> like this, Facebook is likely to be emptied of its users. Gone! >> >> Cheers >> >> Olivier Auber >> # 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: > > # 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: Quit Facebook: Open letter to Yann LeCun
Thanks Olivier About upcoming data portability ? https://euobserver.com/digital/137977 " As of 25 May 2018, EU citizens will have a new legal right that will help them switch digital services. It is called the right to data portability. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_portability On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, 18:50 olivier auber wrote: > Open letter to Yann LeCun, former Professor at College de France, Head of > Research in Artificial Intelligence at Facebook. > > From Olivier Auber, researcher, Free University of Brussels (VUB) > > Dear Yann > > as a researcher as you are too, but in another area, that is Natural > Intelligence (NI), I would like to address you publicly to let you know > that I'm leaving Facebook, probably definitely. > > The reason is simple. Facebook is obviously a powerful tool of > communication. Many researchers I work with have become accustomed to using > it without asking too much questions for their informal exchanges. The > conversations that are conducted there are sometimes futile, but often also > of the greatest interest. > > But I realize that these conversations, in a way, no longer belong to us > when they are conducted on Facebook! > > The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to > bring with you a summary archive. But this archive does not contain: > > - links included in your personal posts (just that!) > - discussions following your personal posts. > - Comments left on other posts > - the links of posts that you republish. > - your address book (you get the names, not the mails or other coordinates > theoretically shared with you) > > In short, it's a real hostage taking! > > In other words, Facebook looks like a sort of Far West saloon in which > alcohol would be free. If you go in, not to drink, but to simply chat with > your friends, you realize when you go out that your conversations and your > address book no longer belong to you. They belong to the boss of the > saloon! To top it off, the boss forbids you to say goodbye one by one to > your friends and retrieve their details. Personal messages are indeed > blocked after a few hundred! > > In short, by this open letter, I wish to alert my colleagues and more > generally all professional or independent intellectual workers. Do not post > your ideas on Facebook! Do not lead any interesting conversation on > Facebook! Instead, choose to chat on free distributed social networks such > as Diaspora or Mastodon. Choose shared intelligence platforms like > Seenthis. In particular, my friends, independent researchers or independent > artists, do not wait until Mark Zuckerberg, enriched to the extreme by your > free work, wants to pay you a basic income. He has no legitimacy to do > that! Instead, experiment with distributed free money creation networks > such as Duniter. > > Dear Yann, to conclude, I do not doubt that thanks to your talent and that > of the researchers you have gathered, Facebook can one day realize the most > beautiful Artificial Intelligence. On this day, however, by behaving like > this, Facebook is likely to be emptied of its users. Gone! > > Cheers > > Olivier Auber > # 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: # 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: Quit Facebook: Open letter to Yann LeCun
Dear Olivier, Really, people don't know what Facebook is? Holy cow! Happy new year out of FB! :) Frederic Neyrat 2018-01-10 11:49 GMT-06:00 olivier auber : > Open letter to Yann LeCun, former Professor at College de France, Head of > Research in Artificial Intelligence at Facebook. > > From Olivier Auber, researcher, Free University of Brussels (VUB) > > Dear Yann > > as a researcher as you are too, but in another area, that is Natural > Intelligence (NI), I would like to address you publicly to let you know > that I'm leaving Facebook, probably definitely. > > The reason is simple. Facebook is obviously a powerful tool of > communication. Many researchers I work with have become accustomed to using > it without asking too much questions for their informal exchanges. The > conversations that are conducted there are sometimes futile, but often also > of the greatest interest. > > But I realize that these conversations, in a way, no longer belong to us > when they are conducted on Facebook! > > The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to > bring with you a summary archive. But this archive does not contain: > > - links included in your personal posts (just that!) > - discussions following your personal posts. > - Comments left on other posts > - the links of posts that you republish. > - your address book (you get the names, not the mails or other coordinates > theoretically shared with you) > > In short, it's a real hostage taking! > > In other words, Facebook looks like a sort of Far West saloon in which > alcohol would be free. If you go in, not to drink, but to simply chat with > your friends, you realize when you go out that your conversations and your > address book no longer belong to you. They belong to the boss of the > saloon! To top it off, the boss forbids you to say goodbye one by one to > your friends and retrieve their details. Personal messages are indeed > blocked after a few hundred! > > In short, by this open letter, I wish to alert my colleagues and more > generally all professional or independent intellectual workers. Do not post > your ideas on Facebook! Do not lead any interesting conversation on > Facebook! Instead, choose to chat on free distributed social networks such > as Diaspora or Mastodon. Choose shared intelligence platforms like > Seenthis. In particular, my friends, independent researchers or independent > artists, do not wait until Mark Zuckerberg, enriched to the extreme by your > free work, wants to pay you a basic income. He has no legitimacy to do > that! Instead, experiment with distributed free money creation networks > such as Duniter. > > Dear Yann, to conclude, I do not doubt that thanks to your talent and that > of the researchers you have gathered, Facebook can one day realize the most > beautiful Artificial Intelligence. On this day, however, by behaving like > this, Facebook is likely to be emptied of its users. Gone! > > Cheers > > Olivier Auber > > # 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: > # 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:
Quit Facebook: Open letter to Yann LeCun
Open letter to Yann LeCun, former Professor at College de France, Head of Research in Artificial Intelligence at Facebook. >From Olivier Auber, researcher, Free University of Brussels (VUB) Dear Yann as a researcher as you are too, but in another area, that is Natural Intelligence (NI), I would like to address you publicly to let you know that I'm leaving Facebook, probably definitely. The reason is simple. Facebook is obviously a powerful tool of communication. Many researchers I work with have become accustomed to using it without asking too much questions for their informal exchanges. The conversations that are conducted there are sometimes futile, but often also of the greatest interest. But I realize that these conversations, in a way, no longer belong to us when they are conducted on Facebook! The proof is that when you want to leave Facebook, the platform offers to bring with you a summary archive. But this archive does not contain: - links included in your personal posts (just that!) - discussions following your personal posts. - Comments left on other posts - the links of posts that you republish. - your address book (you get the names, not the mails or other coordinates theoretically shared with you) In short, it's a real hostage taking! In other words, Facebook looks like a sort of Far West saloon in which alcohol would be free. If you go in, not to drink, but to simply chat with your friends, you realize when you go out that your conversations and your address book no longer belong to you. They belong to the boss of the saloon! To top it off, the boss forbids you to say goodbye one by one to your friends and retrieve their details. Personal messages are indeed blocked after a few hundred! In short, by this open letter, I wish to alert my colleagues and more generally all professional or independent intellectual workers. Do not post your ideas on Facebook! Do not lead any interesting conversation on Facebook! Instead, choose to chat on free distributed social networks such as Diaspora or Mastodon. Choose shared intelligence platforms like Seenthis. In particular, my friends, independent researchers or independent artists, do not wait until Mark Zuckerberg, enriched to the extreme by your free work, wants to pay you a basic income. He has no legitimacy to do that! Instead, experiment with distributed free money creation networks such as Duniter. Dear Yann, to conclude, I do not doubt that thanks to your talent and that of the researchers you have gathered, Facebook can one day realize the most beautiful Artificial Intelligence. On this day, however, by behaving like this, Facebook is likely to be emptied of its users. Gone! Cheers Olivier Auber # 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:
Fred Turner: Fascism and The Historical Irony of Facebook
https://medium.com/initialized-capital/fascism-and-the-historical-irony-of-facebooks-fake-news-problem-d744b05045fd#.pcxf34w0r Kim-Mai Cutler, 24.11.2016 <...> I wanted to catch up and get his [Fred Turner's] reflections on the election and Facebook and Twitter’s impact on American politics. Much of the discussion in the press feels ahistorical and there is this irony in that the ideas behind networked and peer-to-peer media are rooted in a resistance to fascism and emerged from the lessons of World War II. Q: So can you explain the core argument of your book ["The Democratic Surround: Multimedia and American Liberalism from World War II to the Psychedelic Sixties"]? Turner: In the late 1930s, when Germany turned fascist, Americans were mystified. Our intellectual leaders had long thought that Germany was the most culturally sophisticated nation in Europe. They were all asking how this had happened. How did the country that brought us Goethe and Beethoven bring us Hitler? Many Americans blamed the mass media. They had two different ways of thinking about it. First, some believed that Hitler and his clique were clinically insane. Somehow they had transferred their madness over the radio waves and through newsreel movie screens to ordinary Germans. Second, many believed that one-to-many media forced audiences into an authoritarian kind of passivity. When everyone turned their eyes and ears in the same direction, they appeared to be acting out the obedience expected of fascist citizens. When World War II started, the Roosevelt administration wanted to create propaganda to make Americans fight fascism abroad. But the problem was — what media were they going to use? If they used mass media, they risked turning Americans into authoritarians. But if they didn’t, they wondered, how would they achieve the national unity they needed to fight fascism? There was one school of thought that said, “We’ll just copy [Joseph] Goebbels. We’ll de-program Americans later [if they turn totalitarian].” But there were about 60 American intellectuals who were part of something called the Committee for National Morale who had another idea. These were people like anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead, psychologist Gordon Allport, and the curator Arthur Upham Pope. They believed that we needed to create a kind of media that would promote democratic personalities. And if we did that, we could prevent racist nationalism. They dreamed of media that would surround you, that would require you to make your own choices and use your individual perception to define the images that mattered most to you. It was meant to be a kind of media environment within which you could make your own decisions, and so become more individually unique. At the same time, it put you in the company of others doing the same thing. The environment was designed to help forge both individual identity and collective unity simultaneously. The Committee for National Morale didn’t end up making media. But a group of Bauhaus artists, who were escaping Hitler’s Germany, took up their ideas and began creating immersive, multi-image environments. Their first big work was a propaganda exhibition called “The Road To Victory” at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1942. Herbert Bayer and Edward Steichen surrounded visitors with images of all different sizes so that people could choose to be citizens in the company of others. It’s a form that surrounds you, which is why I called the book “The Democratic Surround.” Over the next 50 years, through a series of twists and turns, the democratic media dreams of the Committee for National Morale actually set the stage for Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of peer-to-peer media. The irony is that with Donald Trump, we are seeing a medium and a set of tactics designed to confront fascism being used to produce a new authoritarianism. <> Q: Let’s go back to media now. You’re talking about media exhibitions in the 1940s. How does the work that these thinkers and artists were doing translate to how online media works today? Turner: The multi-media images in “The Democratic Surround” provide a glimpse of the kind of perceptual world that media thinkers believed would make us less racist and more embracing of our differences. It’s a world in which we’re meant to practice looking at and identifying with others who are not like ourselves. The surround aesthetics of the 1940s came to shape the 1950s, 60s and 70s by moving through two worlds. One, they became the basis of cold war propaganda exhibitions. Well into the 1960s, Americans built multi-image propaganda environments, with an eye toward democratizing populations in authoritarian countries. They built multi-image environments as part of trade fairs or exhibitions in the belief that they would give people the ability to practice the modes of perception that democracy depends upon. In 1955, Edward Steichen built what remains th
Facebook Helped Drive a Voter Registration Surge
Another story about Facebook's increasing power to affect the vote. Two years, Jonathan Zitrain showed how FB was able to increase voter turnout by sending out reminders during the mid-term elections [1]. [1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117878/information-fiduciary-solution-facebook-digital-gerrymandering Now this one is about FB's ability to drive voter registration. If you go to the article, you see can look at some of the graphs, the "Facebook Bump" is quite impressive. Now, let's assume that FB has not been targeting specific constituencies -- which it could easily do, since targeted ads are their core business -- but showed the reminder to a representative sample or to all users in the US. Would that still give it an undue influence on the election? I think so, but in subtle ways. One thing, as the article notes, is that Facebook-users are not representative of the overall population. So FB users, particularly active FB users, are a select demographic, rather then the population. But it's more than that, FB first sallowed the Internet, now it's remaking the world in its own image Felix -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/facebook-helped-drive-a-voter-registration-surge-election-officials-say.html?_r=0 A 17-word Facebook reminder contributed to substantial increases in online voter registration across the country, according to top election officials. At least nine secretaries of state have credited the social network’s voter registration reminder, displayed for four days in September, with boosting sign-ups, in some cases by considerable amounts. Data from nine other states show that registrations rose drastically on the first day of the campaign compared with the day before. “Facebook clearly moved the needle in a significant way,” Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said in an interview on Tuesday. <...> Facebook’s effort is notable not just for boosting voter registration, but also for the kinds of voters it may have helped to enlist. While Facebook could not provide demographic breakdowns of the users who registered, the social network is more popular among female internet users than male users, and the same is true for young users compared with older users, according to 2015 data from the Pew Research Center. Both groups — women and younger adults — tend to lean Democratic. In California, for example, nearly 24 percent of online voter registrations during the Facebook campaign came from residents aged 17 to 25. Nearly 30 percent more came from Californians from 26 to 35 years old. “It’s pretty clear that the Facebook reminder campaign disproportionately motivated young people to register,” Mr. Padilla, the secretary of state, said. The reminder — “Are you registered to vote? Register now to make sure you have a voice in the election.” — was presented alongside two links: one leading to a federal directory of state voter registration websites; and another allowing users to share that they had registered. Only users who would be of voting age on Election Day saw the reminder, which appeared for both desktop and mobile users. Officials greeted the effort enthusiastically. <...> -- | http://felix.openflows.com |OPEN PGP: 056C E7D3 9B25 CAE1 336D 6D2F 0BBB 5B95 0C9F F2AC # 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:
NYT > Zeynep Tufekci > The Real Bias Built In at Facebook
< http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/opinion/the-real-bias-built-in-at-facebook.html > The Real Bias Built In at Facebook by Zeynep Tufekci NYT, MAY 19, 2016 FACEBOOK is biased. That's true. But not in the way conservative critics say it is. The social network's powerful newsfeed is programmed to be viral, clicky, upbeat or quarrelsome. That's how its algorithm works, and how it determines what more than a billion people see every day. The root of this bias is in algorithms, a much misunderstood but increasingly powerful method of decision making that is spreading to fields from news to health care to hiring and even to war. Algorithms in human affairs are generally complex computer programs that crunch data and perform computations to optimize outcomes chosen by programmers. Such an algorithm isn't some pure sifting mechanism, spitting out objective answers in response to scientific calculations. Nor is it a mere reflection of the desires of the programmers. We use these algorithms to explore questions that have no right answer to begin with, so we don't even have a straightforward way to calibrate or correct them. The current discussion of bias and Facebook started this month, after some former Facebook contractors claimed that the "trending topics" section on Facebook highlighted stories that were vetted by a small team of editors who had a prejudice against right-wing news sources. This suggestion set off a flurry of reactions, and even a letter from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. However, the trending topics box is a trivial part of the site, and almost invisible on mobile, where most people use Facebook. And it is not the newsfeed, which is controlled by an algorithm. To defend itself against the charges of bias stemming from the "trending topics" revelation, Facebook said that the process was neutral, that the stories were first "surfaced by an algorithm." Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, then invited the radio host Glenn Beck and other conservatives to meet with him on Wednesday. But "surfaced by an algorithm" is not a defense of neutrality, because algorithms aren't neutral. Algorithms are often presented as an extension of natural sciences like physics or biology. While these algorithms also use data, math and computation, they are a fountain of bias and slants -- of a new kind. If a bridge sways and falls, we can diagnose that as a failure, fault the engineering, and try to do better next time. If Google shows you these 11 results instead of those 11, or if a hiring algorithm puts this person's résumé at the top of a file and not that one, who is to definitively say what is correct, and what is wrong? Without laws of nature to anchor them, algorithms used in such subjective decision making can never be truly neutral, objective or scientific. Programmers do not, and often cannot, predict what their complex programs will do. Google's Internet services are billions of lines of code. Once these algorithms with an enormous number of moving parts are set loose, they then interact with the world, and learn and react. The consequences aren't easily predictable. Our computational methods are also getting more enigmatic. Machine learning is a rapidly spreading technique that allows computers to independently learn to learn -- almost as we do as humans -- by churning through the copious disorganized data, including data we generate in digital environments. However, while we now know how to make machines learn, we don't really know what exact knowledge they have gained. If we did, we wouldn't need them to learn things themselves: We'd just program the method directly. With algorithms, we don't have an engineering breakthrough that's making life more precise, but billions of semi-savant mini-Frankensteins, often with narrow but deep expertise that we no longer understand, spitting out answers here and there to questions we can't judge just by numbers, all under the cloak of objectivity and science. If these algorithms are not scientifically computing answers to questions with objective right answers, what are they doing? Mostly, they "optimize" output to parameters the company chooses, crucially, under conditions also shaped by the company. On Facebook the goal is to maximize the amount of engagement you have with the site and keep the site ad-friendly. You can easily click on "like," for example, but there is not yet a "this was a challenging but important story" button. This setup, rather than the hidden personal beliefs of programmers, is where the thorny biases creep into algorithms, and that's why it's perfectly plausible for Facebook's work force to be liberal, and yet for the site to be a powerful conduit for conservative ideas as well as c
Re: Richard Stallman: Eradicate Facebook!e
This is precisely what I have been arguing and what I present as a plausible alternative thinking to my students - platform cooperatives which Trebir Schulz has been working on for instance - but that what we need - is mainly some kind of non proprietary social networking --because the underlying business model of FB is corporate sprawl on networks and because the benefits of social networking over "pure" DOS interface or other paired back attempts to get around "multimedia" or as statements in bandwidth-use or as rebellions simply overlook what social networking has to offer - namely different modes of expression, audio/video, chat lines etc --so they aren't really solutions, just less satisfying alternatives - Because you cannot show as much - share as much --yet the sharing economy of FB for instance supports the sprawl...so what to do? Obviously there needs to be stiff regulation imposed on data mining practices, like the virtual fracking monsters they are - and this imposition of regulation - which would be great if user generated - but maybe that's what crypto is...would set real limits to the amounts of capitalization possible on our data...regulate the gross exploitation AND surveillance of data! Molly > On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Florian Cramer wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:51 AM, carlo von lynX >wrote: > > 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. > > Yet these alternative visions of social networking don't necessarily > solve the issue of data mining, unless they're based on strong > cryptography and cryptographic webs of trust that strictly limit the > readability of content to one's selected peers. <...> # 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!
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:51 AM, carlo von lynX > 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. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 07:13:20PM +0100, Florian Cramer wrote: > Yet these alternative visions of social networking don't necessarily solve > the issue of data mining, unless they're based on strong cryptography and > cryptographic webs of trust that strictly limit the readability of content > to one's selected peers. Of course I was speaking of doing it crypto all over.. and the readability is limited to the selected chunk of social graph that is allowed to subscribe to certain channels. So data mining is only available to the legitimate recipients of those channels - in other words, regular human treason / infiltration of groups by social engineering is still possible, but no bulk surveillance & analysis. > Many critics and activists glorify the pre-Facebook times of individual > homepages and blogs. However, these systems can even be better data-mined > by third parties than proprietary social networks, especially given today's > refinement of web technology (with its refined social interaction designs, > meta data architectures, geolocation APIs etc.). Yes. Somewhere I wrote a piece on how the Internet was never free and we need to create it first. > But even a mailing list like Nettime is fully open data for everyone, > except for the list of subscribers. It is fully xkeyscore most of all. Just as all email and all websites with email notification such as bug trackers... -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ # 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!
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:51 AM, carlo von lynX wrote: 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. Yet these alternative visions of social networking don't necessarily solve the issue of data mining, unless they're based on strong cryptography and cryptographic webs of trust that strictly limit the readability of content to one's selected peers. Many critics and activists glorify the pre-Facebook times of individual homepages and blogs. However, these systems can even be better data-mined by third parties than proprietary social networks, especially given today's refinement of web technology (with its refined social interaction designs, meta data architectures, geolocation APIs etc.). But even a mailing list like Nettime is fully open data for everyone, except for the list of subscribers. -F # 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!
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 07:44:03PM -0700, morlockel...@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. That is precisely it. As long as people are put in a position to access other people's data we have a structural problem that can corrupt our basic freedoms that may even not be important to us as individuals but spell an end to democracy by dilution of its constitution. See also the power of Google and Facebook to influence the vote of 20-40% of the population in most countries and the conclusions Assange describes in recent talks. He says we only have a few years to fix this, then it may be too late to get democracy back. 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. > 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. As a legislative measure? First politics should foster the creation of a free social networking alternative, then it can simply require its use by law. After all Facebook and Google are infringing the most basic requirements of most democratic constitutions. Offering basic communication tools over a web of cloudy servers must simply not be legal. Only anonymized end-to-end encrypted communication satisifies the requirements of democracy. The mere potential that a government agency could access *all* communication data rather than that of a few specific suspect individuals is a breach in the basic contract of democracy. It's not even legal to say "we're not doing it". The fact that it requires us to trust them is anti-constitutional. The way the judiciary is unable to check on it makes the checks and balances aka separation of powers fall apart. > >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. Yes, even if Facebook was entirely subscribing to Affero GPL would not guarantee that government isn't forcing them to breach AGPL in order to provide full database access to the five friends while at the same time vehemently proclaim the contrary in public. Given the legal situation in the US that Apple vs FBI story looks like a PR stunt with both sides winning. Of course Facebook would support that. Wait, they don't even need to breach AGPL when adding some extra NSA administration account to the databases... free software is a precondition for liberty, but totally insufficient by itself. -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ # 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!
Den 20-03-2016 kl. 11:43 skrev Patrice Riemens: original to: http://sivertimes.com/richard-stallman-wants-to-destroy-facebook-to-protect-privacy/17274 original interview in Le Devoir (Montreal) (in French): http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/actualites-en-societe/465389/eradiquer-facebook-pour-sauver-la-democratie Off-topic, it's strange to see as slick-looking a web site as silvertimes.com apparently use Google Translate to get articles from French; rendering their text barely legible compared with the original. # 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! And as to apple case
As to the Apple case, haven't people always been able to write messages in cypher or just whisper them without government having any right to force someone else to decode or to listen in? Does the fact that now enciphering is a commercial service change that fundamentally? Patrice writes: it is interesting to note that Facebook is one of the companies that have publicly supported Apple in the case against the FBI seeking access to encrypted data of iPhone. Facebook has also signed a motion in court. Best, Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks. > On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:43 AM, Patrice Riemens wrote: > > # 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!
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Patrice Riemens wrote: > > For Stallman, proprietary software is a fundamental obstacle to > freedom since the editor is able to decide the content, functionality, > impose censorship or deploy at will update. 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 a cute photo of a kitten. --Dave. # 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:
Richard Stallman: Eradicate Facebook!
original to: http://sivertimes.com/richard-stallman-wants-to-destroy-facebook-to-protect-privacy/17274 original interview in Le Devoir (Montreal) (in French): http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/actualites-en-societe/465389/eradiquer-facebook-pour-sauver-la-democratie Richard Stallman wants to destroy Facebook to protect privacy sivertime | March 16, 2016 | Techno | Is Facebook the sworn enemy of democracy and privacy? In any case think that Richard Stallman, father of the free software that calls for a boycott. Passage in Quebec, Richard Stallman gave a speech at Laval University on digital freedoms, and of course, free software. The man behind the GPL and dream of a world in which proprietary software – which he calls “privateurs” – simply do not exist anymore. The man believes the network of Mark Zuckerberg is a fundamental obstacle to privacy. In an interview collected by Le Devoir, he says : “We must eliminate Facebook to protect privacy.” He added that Facebook “much more uses its users that its users do not use it (…) It is a perfectly calculated service to retrieve and collect a lot of data on people’s lives.” For Stallman, proprietary software is a fundamental obstacle to freedom since the editor is able to decide the content, functionality, impose censorship or deploy at will update. For Facebook, the data collected – with the consent of the internet – obviously used to provide a more effective targeted advertising. In parallel of Mr. Stallman, it is interesting to note that Facebook is one of the companies that have publicly supported Apple in the case against the FBI seeking access to encrypted data of iPhone. Facebook has also signed a motion in court. Marketing real concern strategy? Anyway, the giant community has also set up a specific URL only accessible from browsers provided with an extension providing support Tor and facilitated communications PGP encrypted with the help of protonmail. # 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:
Valleywag > Traven > Facebook Is Throttling Nonprofits and Activists
< http://valleywag.gawker.com/facebook-is-throttling-nonprofits-and-activists-1569877170 > Facebook Is Throttling Nonprofits and Activists B. Traven 4/30/14 1:35pm Facebook Is Throttling Nonprofits and Activists So far coverage of Facebook's plan to squeeze the organic reach of Pages has focused on its impact on "brands" that spam us with ads and promotions. But nonprofits, activists, and advocacy groups with much fewer resources (and no ad budgets) are also being hugely affected. It's starting to look like Facebook is willing to strangle public discourse on the platform in an attempt to wring out a few extra dollars for its new shareholders. Put simply, "organic reach" is the number of people who potentially could see any given Facebook post in their newsfeed. Long gone are the days when Facebook would simply show you everything that happened in your network in strict chronological order. Instead, algorithms filter the flood of updates, posts, photos, and stories down to the few that they calculate you would be most interested in. (Many people would agree that these algorithms are not very good, which is why Facebook is putting so much effort into refining them.) This means that even if I have, say, 400 friends, only a dozen or so might actually see any given thing I post. One way to measure your reach, then, is as the percentage of your total followers who (potentially) see each of your posts. This is the ratio that Facebook has more-or-less publicly admitted it is ramping down to a target range of 1-2% for Pages. In other words, even if an organization's Page has 10,000 followers, any given item they post might only reach 100-200 of them. In the case of my organization, that ratio is already down from an average of nearly 20% in 2012 to less than 5% today--a 75% reduction. Another way of looking at it is in terms of what our reach would have been if Facebook hadn't shifted the goalposts. From February to October 2012 our posts reached about 18% of our followers, on average [see graph above]. If that percentage had stayed the same as our followers grew over the past two years, then each item we posted today would theoretically reach about 1,000 people. Lots of people have no problem with making Mountain Dew or Sony pay for what was previously free advertising--never mind that Facebook had already encourage them to pay for more likes with the promise that they would be able to broadcast to those followers for free. Nobody needs to shed a tear for the poor souls at Proctor & Gamble who have been forced to rejigger some small piece of their multibillion dollar advertising budget. But Facebook has also become a new kind of platform for political and social advocacy. We may scoff at overblown "saving the world" rhetoric when it comes from Silicon Valley execs, but in places like Pakistan (not to mention in Tahrir Square or the Maidan) the idea of social media as an open marketplace of social and political ideas is taken quite seriously. That all goes away if nobody can even see your posts. In the more prosaic world of nonprofits, Facebook has also become a crucial outreach tool and an effective way to stay in touch with supporters and partners. Many organizations funded by government or foundation grants are not even legally allowed to spend that money on advertising--and many more simply don't have the budget for it regardless. Facebook urgently needs to address the impact that its algorithm changes are having on nonprofits, NGOs, civil society, and political activists--especially those in developing countries, who are never going to be able to "pay to play" and for whom Facebook is one of the few really effective ways to get a message out to a wide audience without government control or censorship. Improving the quality of posts on Facebook is a laudable goal, but it must be done in a transparent manner. For all the gripes people have about Google and their search algorithm, they are very clear about what they consider "quality" content and even provide free tools to help ensure pages have what their robots like to see. An algorithm change that results in a huge swath of legitimate, non-spam users losing 75% of their reach should not be deployed in secret. In the meantime, there are still some social networks that don't presume to know what you want to see in your timeline and will blast every one of your messages to every one of your followers. At least for now. Twitter just went public last November and will need to show a profit someday. B. Traven is a pseudonym. He runs social media for a mid-sized international NGO in Washington, D.C. # distributed via : no commercial u
FP > Christian Cary > Burma Gives a Big Thumbs-Up to Facebook
< http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/13/burma-gives-a-big-thumbs-up-to-facebook/ > Burma Gives a Big Thumbs-Up to Facebook Four years ago Facebook didn't exist in Burma. Now it's the country's most important source of information. * By Christian Caryl -- Christian Caryl is the author of Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century. A former reporter at Newsweek, he is a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute (which co-publishes Democracy Lab with Foreign Policy) and is a contributing editor at the National Interest. He is also a senior fellow at the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books. * November 13, 2015 - 5:11 pm * christian.caryl * @ccaryl Burma Gives a Big Thumbs-Up to Facebook As the vote count draws to a close, it's clear that Burma's long-suffering opposition has scored a landslide victory in Sunday's historic national election. And the leader of that opposition knows whom to thank. As she was explaining the reasons for her party's remarkable triumph in an interview with the BBC this week, Nobel Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi said this: "And then of course there's the communications revolution. This has made a huge difference. Everybody gets onto the net and informs everybody else of what is happening. And so it's much more difficult for those who wish to commit irregularities to get away with it." She could have been a little more specific, though. When people here in Burma refer to the "Internet," what they often have in mind is Facebook -- the social media network that dominates all online activity in this country to a degree unimaginable anywhere else. When President Thein Sein decided to issue a statement conceding victory to Suu Kyi's triumphant League for National Democracy (NLD), he used the Facebook page of the presidential spokesman to do it. The army published a similar concession statement on its own Facebook page. And when Suu Kyi held a press conference a few days before the election, millions of people tuned in via Facebook (since state-run media did not deign to show it). Both Suu Kyi and her opponents were just following the eyeballs. Though the company declines to provide statistics on its Burma operations, experts put the number of registered Facebook users (in this country of 50 million) at 6.4 million. That's up from more or less zero until the fall of 2011 -- since Facebook didn't even officially exist in the country until then. Facebook's Messenger app also enjoys huge popularity thanks to its reputation for good security -- an important selling point in a country with a long history of aggressive government surveillance. (In Burma, at least, you can use Messenger without actually having an account, and many Burmese seem to be doing just that.) "Facebook has become an important and growing part of people's lives in Myanmar," says Facebook representative Clare Wareing, using the official name for Burma, "and we are humbled by the ways we see people in Myanmar connect in big and small ways." (Wareing works for the Australian branch of the company, which is responsible for operations in Burma.) Yet even if the powers-that-be have tried to harness it to their own ends, it's indisputably Aung San Suu Kyi and her party that have been the biggest beneficiaries of Facebook's startling rise. That's because television and radio -- the means by which most Burmese get their information -- remain firmly under state control, as do large swathes of the print media. Facebook, which arrived in Burma about the time that the government set about dismantling its long-standing system of censorship, has given the opposition a crucial way of closing the gap. Than Htut Aung, Chairman and CEO of Eleven Media Group, says that his company -- one of the country's biggest private media conglomerates -- has distinguished itself from its state-run rivals by its generous coverage of the NLD, which is why its Facebook page now boasts 4.5 million followers. (Eleven Media's website, by contrast, has a negligible audience.) When a member of the ruling party insulted Suu Kyi in a Facebook post a few months ago, the corresponding report on Eleven Media's Facebook page received a mind-boggling 20,000 comments. It's the pluralism of Facebook, says Aung, that has made it the dominant source of information for young Burmese: "Six months ago, it was people in their forties and fifties who were interested in politics. Now it's the people in their twenties and thirties who are intereste
Moglen and Choudhary: Fictional internet policy is bad for India, good only for Facebook
< http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/fictional-internet-policy-is-bad-for-india-good-only-for-facebook-282664.html > Fictional internet policy is bad for India, good only for Facebook 28 Sep 2015 , 08:26 By Eben Moglen & Mishi Choudhary Manu Joseph is widely considered to be a particularly accomplished novelist. As an Internet policy analyst, however, he has trouble telling fact from fiction. Writing in the New York Times[1] on 16 September, Mr Joseph -- newly reborn as an admirer rather than a skeptic of Mark Zuckerberg's altruism -- hotly defends Mr Zuckerberg's "Internet.org" scheme. He accuses of gluttony those of us who think the world's poor deserve the same security and openness of the Internet as the world's rich. We use all the broadband in India, Mr Joseph says; therefore we can afford to condescend to the poor by demanding for them the same Internet we use and that they, he says, will never be able to afford, unless they get the shoddy equivalent offered by Zuckerberg. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/world/asia/protecting-the-internet-but-depriving-indias-poor.html It was not always thus. Writing in the same newspaper a mere six months ago, in mid-April, Mr Joseph caustically described[2] the Zuckerberg scam as it really is: "The goal of Internet.org is to bring cheap Internet to all, as long as they use Facebook." [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/world/asia/another-take-on-net-neutrality.html Not just use Facebook, Mr Joseph might have gone on to explain -- in the sense of live their social lives under its ever-present deep inspection surveillance -- but also agree to put all their traffic through its servers. They must surrender their data security (of banking, buying, or whatever else they do on the Net) because Zuckerberg's "man in the middle" attack breaks it. They must give up any idea of anonymity or personal privacy in any of their online life. Zuckerberg's Internet.org service -- recently renamed Free Basics[3] -- is a way of bugging the entire Internet, not just Facebook itself, for hundreds of millions of users, because that kind of rotten service is all, being poor, we can "afford" to give them. Mr Joseph knew that in April. [3] http://tech.firstpost.com/news%20-%20analysis/facebook-rebrands-internet-org-now-calls-it-free-basics-282512.html But what a difference six months makes. Reborn as a Facebook-enthusiast and Zuckerberg-admirer, Mr Joseph now tell us that "the minority of Indians who consume most of the nation's bandwidth [want] to pass legislation that would deny free Internet access to the poor." Ghosts, in Mr Joseph's novels, have been known to do some remarkable things; apparently now they also write his columns. He should not let them. Requiring Indian telecommunications network operators to preserve the integrity of the Net, and the equality of all its users, does not deny free Internet access to the poor. It would, however, prevent Zuckerberg from ripping off the Indian poor and calling it charity. We do indeed think that would be a good thing, as have the nations around the world (including the Netherlands, Canada and Chile) that have banned the practice. Needless to say, Mr Joseph does not remind anyone that he used to think so too. Zuckerberg's "Free Basics" is a scam against its supposed beneficiaries for several reasons. First, rather than offering "the Internet," his service requires its users to route all their traffic to "free websites" through his servers, where the users' identities are logged so that their traffic can be paid for by the spy, rather than by them. So the first actual charge is that the poor will be comprehensively surveilled by Facebook, losing any shred of personal privacy, while the rich using the real Internet do not route all their traffic through Facebook. Second, Zuckerberg destroys the security of his users, the benefited poor. As announced, Zuckerberg's service prohibited all use of the secure web protocol HTTPS (the one that lights up the little lock image on the status bar of your browser). HTTPS, and its authentication mechanism, are the only reasons that online banking and e-commerce are safe for consumers. So not only were the Indian poor to lose all chance of anonymity on the Net with respect to Zuckerberg, but they were also to abandon any possibility of common safety in the Net. Naturally, these technical details eluded Mr Joseph, whose newfound sentimental attachment to Internet.org has nothing to do with facts. But ever since the required insecurity of the Internet.org architecture came to wide notice late this summer, observers around the world have been watching the desperate charm offensive of the Facebook crowd. This has included flying groups of Indian reporters business class to California at Facebook's expense to hear presentations abo
Feed my Feed: Radical publishing in Facebook Groups
Hello Nettime from sub-tropical Budapest, This is in a recent Rhizome news Feed my Feed: Radical publishing in Facebook Groups DOROTHY HOWARD | Wed Jul 22nd, 2015 5:12 p.m. "These days, Facebook is so widely used that opting out constitutes an act of defiance of the norm. The refusal to participate can be made for personal reasons, but there is a sizeable group who do so as a protest of the corporate control over interpersonal communication. In a 2014 blog post, Laura Portwood-Stacer used the metaphor of "breaking up with Facebook" to describe: active refusal as a tactical response to the perceived harms engendered by a capitalist system in which media corporations have disproportionate power over their platforms' users, who, it may be said, provide unpaid labor for corporations whenever they log on. The burdens placed on Facebook's users are certainly significant; they include not only cognitive labor, but also online harassment, dataveillence, and the performance of the profile–which is pulled in multiple directions, at the same time increasingly sexualized (pulled into online dating sites like Tinder) and entrepreneurialized (pulled into sites like Airbnb), even while the display of the body within the profile is regulated in punitive, sexist fashion.” full text: http://rhizome.org/editorial/2015/jul/22/feed-my-feed/?ref=nwslettr best Allan Siegel # 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
Regulating Facebook away: an actual proposal
Hands up who in this room thinks of Social Networking as an existential infrastructure rather than as a commercial service? I can imagine Anglosaxons having a hard time seeing things in that way, given how they accept tap water being some company's product, but for the continentals among us many should be willing to make the necessary bold statement to say... - You can sell products over the net, but the net is not the product. - You can do business over social networking, but the network itself belongs to the people in it. Easily said and not so easily put into practice? Actually, there is a way. What it takes is legislation that forbids companies from accessing any conversations between people - be it "mail" or "social networking" (the distinction is just reach and presentation). If Facebook is not one of the intended recipients, they must not be able to read into any communication. It's actually essential for the preservation of our democratic order, but let's skip that aspect for now. Since there is no way to guarantee end-to-end cryptography using the web know, a new distributed cryptographic technology (the web we want maybe) needs to be deployed. Luckily, prototypes of that kind exist. Even plans for distributed social networking platforms. A legislator who likes to stop corporations from filling a role that should be provided by public infrastructure needs to foster suitable technology. Luckily all the device manufacturers and telecoms have an interest in selling phones, tablets and computers. If the availability of a free software distributed social network is part of the legal requirements, they are incentivised to swiftly form a consortium intended to complete the ongoing work in creating a new Internet communications stack that guarantees end-to-end privacy and metadata protection. And the legislator can even specify precisely who, when and how that consortium is made and who gets to exercise control over it. And the legislator could be us. So now we no longer wait for the tech people to come up with something as that may be like waiting for Godot. We activate political organisations, the media and the average people to strain their voices and say they want, need and deserve a secure Internet that maintains their privacy.. and they know how to get it. By pushing that law. And the technology will follow. A proposal along these lines is being written at http://youbroketheinternet.org/#legislation Interested in a session at the Chaos Com. Camp on this topic? -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ # 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
Out now: In the Facebook Aquarium—The Resist
Dear nettimers, on this day of the Facebook Farewell Party, which will be held tonight in the National Theater in Amsterdam on Leidseplein our Institute of Network Cultures is very proud to present the release of: In the Facebook Aquarium—The Resistable Rise of Anarcho-Capitalism by Ippolita Read it online or download the publication here: http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/no-15-in-the-facebook-aquarium-the-resistible-rise-of-anarcho-capitalism-ippolita/ In their new work research collective Ippolita provides a critical investigation of the inner workings of Facebook as a model for all commercial social networks. Facebook is an extraordinary platform that can generate large profit from the daily activities of its users. Facebook may appear to be a form of free entertainment and self-promotion but in reality its users are working for the development of a new type of market where they trade relationships. As users of social media we have willingly submitted to a vast social, economic and cultural experiment. By critically examining the theories of Californian right-libertarians, Ippolita show the thread con- necting Facebook to the European Pirate Parties, WikiLeaks and beyond. An important task today is to reverse the logic of radical transparency and apply it to the technologies we use on a daily basis. The algorithms used for online advertising by the new masters of the digital world – Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon – are the same as those used by despotic governments for personalized repression. Ippolita argues we should not give in to the logic of conspiracy or paranoia instead we must seek to develop new ways of autonomous living in our networked society. Ippolita are an interdisciplinary research group active since 2005. They conduct wide-ranging re- search on technology and its social effects. Their published works include Open non è Free (2005), The Dark Side of Google (2013) and La Rete è libera e democratica. FALSO! (2014). The collective also run workshops on digital self-defense for girls, children, academics, affinity groups, computer geeks and curious people. See: http://ippolita.net First published in Italian, 2012. English edition revised and updated, June 2015. Author: Ippolita. Translator: Patrice Riemens and Cecile Landman. Copy-editing: Matt Beros. Editorial support: Miriam Rasch. Design: Katja van Stiphout. EPUB development: Gottfried Haider. Printer: ‘Print on Demand’. Publisher: Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam 2015. ISBN: 978-94-92302-00-7. # 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
Facebook as social space of play
Allan Resposted from Berfrois Laurent Berlant performs as clicking by Lauren Berlant Today I introduced Facebook to someone older than me and had a long conversation about what the point of networking amongst "friends" is. The person was so skeptical because to her stranger and distance-shaped intimacies are diminished forms of real intimacy. To her, real intimacy is a relation that requires the fortitude and porousness of a serious, emotionally-laden, accretion of mutual experience. Her intimacies are spaces of permission not only for recognition but for the right to be seriously inconvenient, to demand, and to need. It presumes face to faceness, but even more profoundly, flesh to fleshness. But on Facebook one can always skim, or not log in. My version of this distinction is different of course, and sees more overlap than difference among types of attachment. The stretched-out intimacies are important and really matter, but they are more shaped by the phantasmatic dimension of recognition and reciprocity-it is easier to hide inattention, disagreement, disparity, aversion. On the other hand it's easier to focus on what's great in that genre of intimacy and to let the other stuff not matter. There's less likely collateral damage in mediated or stranger intimacies. While the more conventional kinds of intimacy foreground the immediate and the demanding, are more atmospheric and singular, enable others' memories to have the ethical density of knowledge about one that is truer than what one carries around, and involve many more opportunities for losing one's bearings. The latter takes off from a Cavellian thought about love-love as returning to the scene of coordinating lives, synchronizing being-but synchrony can be spread more capaciously and meaningfully amongst a variety of attachments. Still, I think all kinds of emotional dependency and sustenance can flourish amongst people who only meet each other at one or a few points on the grid of the field of their life. Thinking about yesterday's reciprocity entry, I said to her that one point of Facebook is to inhabit the social as a place of play, of having a light impact, of being ordinary, of being acknowledged, of echoing and noodling, where the bar for reciprocity is so low that anyone could perform it by clicking. It's a place where clicking is a sign that someone has paid attention and where dropping a line can build toward making a life. You know someone has imagined you today, checked in. You're not an isolate. Trying to accommodate to my positive explanation, she said, I guess it's like when churches organize prayer circles for impaired strangers, sending out love into the spirit world-it can't hurt, but is it deep? Me: people value different evidence of having had an impact and of mattering to the world they're imagining belonging to, and who can say what's deep from outside of the transference? But I realized that I may be incoherent about this, and of course this problem, of figuring out how to talk about ways of being that are simultaneously openings and defenses, is central to this project. When people talk about modes of belonging they talk about desire but less so about defense. I sense that Facebook is about calibrating the difficulty of knowing the importance of the ordinary event. People are trying there to eventalize the mood, the inclination, the thing that just happened-the episodic nature of existence.So and so is in a mood right now.So and so likes this kind of thing right now; and just went here and there. This is how they felt about it. It's not in the idiom of the great encounter or the great passion, it's the lightness and play of the poke. There's always a potential but not a demand for more. Here is how so and so has shown up to life. Can you show up too, for a sec? How can the "episodic now" become an event? Little mediated worlds produced by kinetic reciprocity enable accretion to become event without the drama of a disturbance. The disturbance is the exception. And that's what makes stranger intimacy a relief from the other kind, which tips you over. Piece crossposted with Supervalent Thought The post Lauren Berlant performs by clicking appeared first on berfrois. # 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
Ooh-la-la, the French Get (Inter)Net Neutrality Right: It's All About the Platform Monopolies-Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter etc.
Version with formatting, links and comments: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/ooh-la-la-the-french-get-internet-n eutrality-right-its-all-about-the-monopolies-google-amazon-facebook-twitter- etc/ http://tinyurl.com/qzlbzwc Ooh-la-la, the French Get (Inter)Net Neutrality Right: It's All About the Platform Monopolies-Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter etc. Michael Gurstein @michaelgurstein Amidst all the storm and thunder surrounding the ever-elusive Net Neutrality (NN) (the FCC call for comments on NN elicited some 1.1 million interventions), the actual point of the exercise at least from the perspective of those looking for an Internet supportive of an open, free, just and democratic Internet seems to have gotten rather lost. Whether "Net Neutrality" is or is not possible from a technical perspective - pragmatists argue yes, purists argue no; whether NN is or is not a fundamental necessity for innovation and economic progress; or whether NN is something that should even be addressed at all given that it represents for some the creeping hand of control over the Internet that so many find repugnant-all these issues and arguments are still raging in the OpEds and online forums from Silicon Valley to New York to Tokyo and beyond. Meanwhile the rather more fundamental issues of monopoly control of, in and through the Internet-content, services, even concepts and affect seems to have fallen off the agenda. The use of Internet monopoly control to further skew the possibility for competition and market innovation; how that monopoly control gives some help in avoiding taxation; how it has resulted in the flowing of revenues from Internet activities into the coffers of a very few and overwhelmingly US based corporations; is over-looked, avoided, perhaps deliberately obscured to be lost in plain-sight while the NN hounds go after ever more obscure technical NN rabbits. So it is refreshing to find a clear-sighted, clear-headed report-"Platform Neutrality: Building an Open and Sustainable Digital Environment" on what NN looks like when seen from outside of the tech pundit echo chamber. In fact according to this report, what NN really looks like isn't NN at all. Rather what the Centre Nationale de Numerique (CNNum) (French Digital Council), a French Internet and things digital think tank funded by and with some policy advisory role for the French Government have identified is the rather more pressing issue of what they term "Platform Neutrality", an interesting adaptation of a term usually used in software circles to point to (or away from) lock-in to one or another software "platform" (think Microsoft or SAP). The use of the terminology in fact is similar in that in the CNNum's use it refers to the Internet (and now mobile) based platforms - Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon - where similar issues of cross-platform interoperability, data portability, lock-in/lock-out for users, suppliers, competitors are quite parallel. The current report builds on an earlier report and "Opinion" on Network Neutrality" which significantly focused more on Network outputs (from the end user perspective) than on Network inputs i.e. the technical details of how bits flow through digital networks and where the conventional notion of Net Neutrality is significantly extended as follows: Net neutrality enforcement for platforms must do more than just protect consumers' well-being. It must also protect the well-being of citizens by ensuring that the Internet's role as a catalyst for innovation, creation, expression and exchange is not undermined by development strategies that close it off. thus linking notions of Net Neutrality with notions of the rights of citizens including for free expression and free exchange. This new report, beginning from the notion of what they call "service platforms", directly linked to the user-facing output notions from their Net Neutrality document goes on to discuss Platform Neutrality in the following terms .service platforms have followed a different development path (from (communication) network platforms) foregoing completely the national monopoly stage: the low level of initial investment required has made it possible to quickly build up dominant platforms on user functions that fully harness the network effect. As long as they continue to go unchallenged by either the political community or by other industry players, their powerful position will be maintained. This is the crux of their highly interesting and innovatively political economic analysis-recognizing that these Internet "platforms" have been "born digital and global" (and thus from their inception outside of the range or even visibility of national regulation or regulators); that they are a new type of business/innovation model- low capitalization, multiple functionalities, and rapid deployment; and perhaps mos
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, part III, section 6 (concluded)
Dear Nettimers,
With this issue of Nettime's Facebook Aquarium 'feuilleton', we have
reached the end of part III, and of the book as well. This - I repeat',
Q&D, 'Quick & Dirty' - translation will now undergo a tedious process of
revision and editing, including a without doubt scathing censure by the
Ippolita collective ;-)
And I am going on holiday!
Enjoy!
Cheerio,
patrizio & Dnooos!
Groningen, August 25, 2014
------
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III
The Freedoms of the Net
Beyond technophobia: let's build convivial technologies together! (section
6, concluded)
Collaboration can progressively evolve into convivial technology, but only
in so far as it stops being part of the ongoing chatter, addresses a real
audience, and starts creating a shared space, a space that can be
developed both in an individual and in a collective sense [47]. If a space
succeeds in giving individuals a sense of fulfillment, then it might get
visited, shared, and used. Such a territory is a collective one, (it
represent a different system with regard to individuals. It is something
not existing before, a radical creation, in the words of Castoriadis an
/imaginary institution/, directed by a /magmatic logic/ [48x]. To use a
convivial technology together (with other people) means to change, to
alter reality, to modify one's own reality, and even more generally, to
change the world around us.
In the group dynamics method(ology), the principal query, and at the same
time, the main issue, is about the extent and limits of the collective
[49]. All collaborative activities have their own ceilings which can be
formulated in /qualitative/, /quantitative/, and /time-bound ('temporal'
)/ fashion. Certain /qualitative/ limits are self-evident, since
collective work is undoubtedly not by definition conform to an
individual's expectations, those of the individual self as unfolding
(self-)development within a collective self. It is, in a certain sense,
less precise, as the perceptions of a single individual subject are not
the same as those of the collective subject. Both subjects are in a stage
of coming-into-being, and require a continuous and controlled interplay
and exchange. This is why doing things alone is far easier and less
troublesome than doing the same in a group. To operate within a group is
painful in so far that one has to renounce having the final word, and that
one has to know how to reconcile (the) various positions (in presence),
given the fact that one's own identity is under continuous re-assessment.
The individual has to entrust a piece of her/his own self-expression to
others. If sHe tries to keep control over everything sHe chokes the
collective and takes up a dominant role, something for which sHe will then
be endlessly blamed, even in those case where people end up agreeing with
her/him.
It is essential to be exacting (in one's endeavours), but there is a ready
risk to become a 'guru', and then, imperceptibly, a faultfinder [or a
pundit ;-)]. Therefore it is essential to keep the (group dynamics) method
in mind as a positive limit, which limit will also be a /quantitative/ one
with respect to the time and the energy one can (sensibly) exert in a(ny
given) collective activity. And it will be even more difficult to achieve
harmony in a project when there are large differences in the matter of
personal investment (commitment). Those who put in the most effort into a
project are subsequently unable to do more and to compensate for the
others' presumed or real failings. There are two causes, related yet
opposed, for this (state of affairs): the first is external, the second
internal to the person involved. The more one invest oneself (in a
project) the greater the risk other participants will get upset, since
this attitude thwarts diffuse autonomy; while on the other hand, the
individual is likely to take too much upon her/himself. SHe will then
demand some form of gratitude in exchange, was it only to compensate for
her/his frustrations ("I am doing all the work here" and "It won't happen
without me" are typical statements at that juncture). But the others will
be loath to grant it, in order to keep the collective running and not
debase their own personal contribution. So, seen from an economic
viewpoint, /to do more/ does not necessarily mean /to do better/:
collaboration demands that both its limits and the rules governing these
to be under continuous re-negotiation.
Pure, blind voluntarism is most often counter-productive. A sensible and
constructive imbalance creatively sliding towards disorder and the
unexpected often requires us to step back a little in order to better
distribute one's energies in favor of others. This is not altruism, but
simply sound strategy. Excessive imbalances should be avoided, jus
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, part III, section 6 (continued)
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Beyond technophobia: let's build convivial technologies together! (section 6, continued) Our social dimension is not necessarily defined by current technologies. Mobile phones have become almost compulsory, and the same is slowly happening with mass social media. But it is not unavoidable. We /could/ decide that we do not want to become Facebook's offshoots, nor Google+ 's children, or of any other sociality platforms managed 'for our own good'; we could try to find out together something better to nurture our social life, just as some people do with respect to what they eat. Our communication life could then become a deeply satisfying feast instead of a void that gets steadily more difficult to fill. A convivial information (regime) is possible, one which favours the realisation of individual freedom and empowerment within a society adequately equipped with efficient tools. The logical outcome of this critique of domination-oriented information is inevitably /"small is beautiful"/. Because size matters. Beyond certain numbers, a fixed hierarchy becomes a requirement to manage the relationships between human beings, and actually between all beings in general, and even with and between things. This because everything is 'relative': everything is 'in relationship with'. If, instead of (having to do with) ten people, in a circumscribed space, maintaining truly unique relationships between each other, we have to do with thousands, nay, millions of people, relativity gives way to homology. To have one thousand friends does not make any sense at all since we do not have the time and energy to maintain all these so-called 'friendships'. Significant relationships need time, attention and competence and cannot be satisfied, neither with /attention-distraction/, nor with indifference. Human beings can only keep 'affective track' (meaning to keep abreast of where people are, what they do there, etc.) of a few dozens of people at the same time [43]. In a project with a too large number participants, one starts with dividing people into categories (by gender, 'race', wealth and resources, age, expertise, etc.). These categories are then rigidly ranked, with no possibility to get out of the frame. Classed 'Male, white, standard language' (skills) leaves no room for evolution other than by way of a radical breach, with attenant shocks, violences and disruptions which inescapably bring one back to square one, or to the (in)famous "What is to be done?" of Leninist heritage, bereft ab initio of any (anarchist-)libertarian response, and ensuring without fail the induction of yet another totalitarian revolution, whether from the left or from the right. Megamachines entail by definition causal links of a capitalist or despotic type. They create dependency, exploitation, and powerlessness of humans reduced to the function of enslaved consumers. And this has nothing to do with property issues, since: "/The collective ownership of the means of production/ does not alter anything in this state of affairs, and merely sustains a Stalinist despotic organization. Accordingly, Illich puts forward the alternative of /everyone's right to make use of the means of production/, in a "convivial society", which is to say, a desiring and non-Oedipal society. This would mean the most extensive utilization of machines by the greatest number of people, the proliferation of small machines and the adaptation of the large machines to small units, the exclusive sale of machinic components which would have to be assembled by the users-producers themselves, and the destruction of the specialization of knowledge and of the professional monopoly." [44] The issue is then really, how to do it? What kind of desires do we harbour with regard to technologies? What kind of online social networks, appropriate to our desires, would we like to build? With which tools? Which modes of participation and of exchange would we like to draw upon? The need of the hour is to reverse the logic of radical transparency and apply it to the technologies we use, and to those social media promising immediate satisfaction whereas they are in fact non-transparent intermediaries. It is absolutely essential for an individual to keep spheres that are private, and to nurture a secret, personal inner world which is not profiled and cannot be profiled. It is vital to learn to spend time with oneself, alone, in silence, and to learn to love oneself, by confronting the fear (we all have) for the void, this inner /horror vacui/ (angst) the social media try, in vain, to dampen. Only individuals with self-esteem and happy enough with themselves, despite their weak points, will have the energy to build up sensible spaces of communication where they can meet other p
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, part III,
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Beyond technophobia: let's build convivial technologies together (section 6) Worldwide congenital blather, the 'global tribe' imagined by McLuhan, is now with us. Our world is now balkanized, fragmented into individual circles managed by corporate mega-machines. Technical apparatuses are like anatomical extensions making human organs more powerful. This because "technology is now part of our body" and it is impossible to do without or even to get rid of it. McLuhan's analysis should then work as a canary in the coal mine when faced with such a threatening form of domination: "Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we dont really have any rights left." [36] One loses one's civic rights there, but first and foremost, one loses one's personal autonomy, in terms of forfeited competences which never will be developed again. Forty years after such a clear-sighted by the Canadian sociologist, while the costs of this maimed ubiquity should be definitely unmistakable, the technological drift has folded itself around us in its ever more stifling coils, to the effect that we delegate more and more. We are all willing termini of a global network and this integration process does not look like as it could be stopped. Even when one is aware of the enormous problems the use of these technologies causes, there are very few possibilities to opt out of them: several tracks pursued by various people to escape the predicament have not led anywhere. But one should not be deceived by the pressing demands for viable alternatives, especially when the demand is for alternatives that work at once and are fit for all. One's personal needs should be queried first: the individual desire and if and how, in reality or imagination, it can be fulfilled. It is obvious that no alternatives exist if the quest is about something as big and as powerful as Google. Only another Google could work as fast and as well as Google does, just as the alternative functioning the way Facebook functions would be another Facebook and nothing else. Therefore, what is needed are many niche alternatives, and many local and diverse solutions. Gigantism simply does not work. Neither does the vacuous ideology of unlimited growth. And radical transparency will definitely not set us free. McLuhan's most famous dictum "the medium is the message" cannot be taken seriously enough. The same message circulated by different media undergoes changes. Fact is, that in the digital (networked) society, we are the medium, and hence the message. while discussing the for and the against of digital technologies we lost track of the depth of the changes that have occurred in the meanwhile. We have to go back to basics: our body, and accept (the consequences of) the fact that if our memories are stocked on line, then our bodies will show a tendency to materialise in those same places. To adapt oneself to the virtual world means, literally, to be absorbed and 'teleported' as it were, on line. The bits' intangible lightness cannot be dissociated from the server-banks' heaviness - data centres strewn around the planet, preferably in its colder regions, as computers heat up and need chilling [37]. Data centers are gigantic sheds with interconnected hard disks stacked up to the ceiling. These fragile total recall mausoleums consume phenomenal amounts of electricity (3% of the US' total consumption in 2011 [38]), taking an equally phenomenal toll on the environment. /Cloud computing/ will do nothing to mitigate the latter, since the exponential growth in data will undo any attempt to limit this wastage. Each time we log into our profile to check whether we exist, somewhere another computer lights up, connecting our request over thousands of miles of cable, all this so that we can 'connect' to our on-line body. The astounding capacity of the human body to adapt made it possible to transform millions of users into willy terminals, and completely ill-adapted to a Web-less world, and that happened in next to no time. Till the twentieth century, physical strength was an important criterium in the assessment of someone's employability. The technological promise of a world free of physical exertions has been realised for the richer part of the planet, by now completely adjusted to a life amidst screens and keyboards. Meanwhile, the rest of the world aspires to partake big time in this walhalla substantiated in the form of tens of thousands consumer goods you only need to choose from. The consumer cult demands that one constantly embodies oneself in available goodies, functioning as identity markers. Even the space one claims on far-away servers becomes an identity m
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, Part III (section 5)
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Mass participation (section 5) The best known instance of mass participation is Wikipedia, the universal encyclopedia numbering now several million entries in dozens of languages, and which is fed by the contributions of millions of volunteers worldwide. It is a astounding experience, and also in many aspects a very innovative one compared to traditional models of collective participation. It is also unique in the sense that as one of the most used and visited websites on the net, it does not finance itself through advertisements, but lives exclusively from donations. But its principal virtue lies in the fact that it puts the emphasis on the non-economic incentives which inspire internauts to collaborate on a project that goes beyond the somewhat musty discourse of the 'gift economy'. One can better call it an economy of attention and recognition. Indeed, what really motivates Wikipedia collaborators, is the acknowledgement they receive from their peers, and the desire they have to see their competence put to use an recognized on a large(r) scale [27]. Nonetheless, numerous elements of criticisms can be levelled against Wikipedia. (Core) Collaborators of the site have started to behave like censors and wish to distinguish themselves from the mass of users (instead of helping them to build up their own role in a creative fashion). Symptoms of hierarchy and domination have appeared within Wikipedia, conflicts have been smouldering among 'wikipedians', and the lore of mass participation is morphing into complex techno-bureaucracies functioning as gate keepers. By now it is essential to 'de-sanctify' the Wikipedia myth: the on-line encyclopedia is _not_ the outcome of the collaboration of human being all united by the same ideal. It is, even in absolute terms, mostly the collaboration between human beings and /bots/. Bots are small programmes performing fully automated tasks (without human intervention). /Rambot/, for instance, created over thirty thousand entries on cities in the world, extracting data from the CIA-published /World Factbook/ and from US civil registries. As of now, bots account for 20% of the Wikipedia entries [28x], bringing forth a highly complex socio-technical phenomenon, on which Bruno Latour, with his 'parliament of things', appears to strike an totally clear and relevant chord [29]. Wikipedia fans or Wikipedia bashers, all must admit that social interaction in these kinds of systems is conducted through programmed and automated protocols. One sees then that sensitive issues, such as the reliability of knowledge, are increasingly entrusted to the care of machines. Then how does the process of unfolding hierarchies work, between reliable and untrustworthy knowledge, and between human and 'mechanical' contributions? Source validation, conflict-avoidance protocol elaboration and common resource allotment allocation are as many urgent issues still awaiting resolution. Taken on the whole, and despite enormous differences, Wikipedia's modus operandi is the same as that of the four giants of the digital world: Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple. Theirs is the logic of accumulation, of the large numbers and of the power of the masses. Even though they do not broadcast like traditional media they too aspire to hegemony. They compete fiercely among each other because they want to win over a larger public and achieve a higher level of consensus [30]. And as they extol the virtues of the 'long tail' made up of the thousands of individuals for whom mass communication is not good enough, they actually function like aggregators and focus far more on quantity than on quality. Their slogan /mass elitism/ is an oxymoron probably more appropriate than they have bargained for. So, if it is essential to limit the number of participants for a conviviality place to function properly, does that mean that the masses are doomed to content themselves with triviality and live under the compulsion of self-promotion and self-exploitation as a consequence? The author of 'The Wisdom of Crowds', James Surowiecki, disagrees. In his book Surowiecki tries, on an ideological plane, to demonstrate that a randomly chosen (large) group of people together possess more competence than one of a few highly intelligent and well-prepared persons. The idea of the wisdom of crowds is not so much that such a group will always provide a better response, but that, on average, it will (tend to)come up with a better solution than one individual alone would; with other words, a composite crowd is, on average, apt to make better decisions than one expert. We have already said that it was important to discuss the actual role of experts, and even to flip their power back at them. When technical knowledge is exclusively beholden, or outsourced to specialised experts, they quickl
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium, Part III (section 4)
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Beyond the net of empty nodes: autonomous individuals and organised networks (section 4) Becoming member of a social network costs next to nothing. Therefore, on-line involvement has become an inherent part of the global spectacle. The underlying issue, once again, is about the articulation of individual and collective identity. Just like relationships that cost nothing (in effort, etc.), zero-cost identities have zero value and fall apart at the first gush of wind. This of course, only in terms of necessary skills, invested time, and passion spend to create a shared something, not in terms of money. In more 'Huxleyan' societies, where good citizen are tasked with consuming, not only goods, but also the social groups they belong to, this is what signals someone's (social) status. With respect to on-line, social media activism, it is clear that it is practised more so as to impress friends than to put one's personal motivated desires and deep political convictions into the line. Membership of (special) interests groups is also largely brought about by narcissism, need for self-promotion, and the requests for attention so manifest in the elaboration of personal profiles. This dynamic is not new and does not only concern online networks. To impress one's peers by defending noble causes (protest against a genocide going on in some far-away country or campaigning to save baby seals) is one of the ways to understand social commitment. Off-line activism is just as much corrupted by this same phenomenon of group fetishism which makes that an individual is inclined to participate in as many groups as possible, to follow as many trainings as possible, and to commit her/himself to as many causes as present themselves, even at the cost of suffering of contact & information overload afterwards and to feel powerless despite all energy spend, and emptied (burnt) out. But the true personal mover there is often an identity deficit at the individual level coupled with a need to feel part of a larger whole, a collective identity that makes sense to the exhausted single person. And it is on this individual subject, the hero-actor on the free market so much cheered by anarcho-capitalists, that we must focus our attention. Now the individual subject is not a rationally given, realized in a single identity, but a permanently on-going process, shaped by the relationships sHe maintains with her/his environment. One could think that, in the era of profit-maximizing, it would make no longer sense to seek free co-operation and collaboration with mutually appreciative people. Not to speak about conviviality: who has still got the time, or the wish, to settle down comfortably to chat, make plans, create something, or simply to have a leisurely break with like-minded folks? Setting up a place of conviviality has nothing to do with becoming member of a group supporting some shared, but so distant cause as to not touch us directly at all. Conviviality presupposes the existence of a stable 'we' that would be at least able to tell its own history, to represent and to take care of itself by building up collective spaces and sharing common moments of life. But nowadays, as soon as it corresponds to something that is more elaborated than a generic 'Like', as soon as it is not in the service of some reactionary tinted identity-related call, the pronoun 'we' becomes almost an insult: it evokes a community in the old-fashioned sense, the provincialism of parochial fights. It is far better to gossip on, to 'manage' a mass of commitment-weak contacts, rather than to waste one's time in just a few (true) inter-personal relationships. It is a very flat 'me' that takes the centre stage in the performance society. The successful 'me', is the general idea, does not need strong links with a particular community: personal ambition, sustained by appropriate skills (the ability to sell oneself well, for instance) is all what is required. These personal resources have been accumulated during the continuous disruptions 'me' has experienced and adjusted to in her/his working life: company reorganizations and management overhauls, periods of work overload and stress, followed by slack times and (re)training. The time not at work is probably even more subjected to this structural instability: serial relocations so as to 'seize the right opportunity' , and friendships maintained on Facebook or by instant messaging: such is the (professional) record that shapes the flexible 'me'. No wonder then if, after thirty years of 'weak links', angst, euphoria and depression follow each other in quick succession. 'Holiday' is not a valid concept in the performance society. No wonder either that the Web, as a reality [#] that favours this type of
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium,
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net On counter-moves and survival skills (section 3, concluded) Technophile luddists have a rather more schizophrenic attitude. They very much like the ease and opportunities offered by technological gadgets, especially those that bring them in contact with others. But they take zero interest in the way these sociality tools actually work. They make no effort to understand, self-manage or tweak these technologies, since it is so much easier and less cumbersome to outsource these issues. They trust experts entirely and call them up as soon as they encounter a problem. Their careless behaviour contributes to the emergence of technocracy. Which does not prevent them to fulminate that they understand zilch about these diabolical devices, and to viciously attack the experts/high priests when they realise that nobody is going to manage their instruments free of charge, that freedom costs more than dependency, and that even experts are not able to solve their problems once and for all. The most common practice is to deliberately, consciously take the side of technocracy and to take the one-way road to delegation dependency. It is natural, when bombarded with contradictory messages, and losing one's bearings in the information chaos, to think that the issues are so massive as to be irresolvable in an autonomous (self-managed) way. The Net is global (by nature) and digital technologies are more invasive than most. The digital gloss covering everything makes one believe that the problem is universal. To autonomously (self-) manage the skills required is too dangerous, techno-enthusiasts (will) say, because human beings are by nature selfish and greedy, ready to go at each other's throat. Thomas Hobbes' famous dictum, that man is a wolf to his fellow man is their motto. For the good of all, it is better to delegate to some competent person, so as to bypass the idiosyncrasies. Technology worshippers believe that it is necessary to set-up institutions and organizations responsible for addressing these technological issues, and this preferably at the global scale. This should vouch for the upholding of citizens' liberties and rights, and of course, also uphold an adequate level of consumption. Technocracy is inherently scientist and it is difficult to go against it without being accused of obscurantism, hatred of progress, or of simple naivety. Technocrats wish for an all-round regulation of the Web. They believe that setting up controlling measures is the best way to achieve this: they are hence in favor of the extension of the panoptic model. Within the Matrix, users live under the guidance of experts forming the disembodied Great Collective Intelligence, an assembly of total knowledge, sort of fantasy replica of Theilard de Chardin's 'noosphere' [18]. Technocratic extremism finds its full realization in post-humanist transhumanism; but even the moderates clamouring for a global regulation of the Web actually contribute to the advancement of radical transparency and global profiling projects. The assumption underpinning the technocratic position is that technologies are inherently good, not evil, and they are the outcome of objective and selfless scientific research. Machines do not lie because they cannot, and anyway they have no interest in doing so. It might be the case, but let us not forget that machines are programmed by humans, for whom a lot of personal interests are at stake, and who are perfectly able to lie, including to themselves. Technocracy is based on the delegation of technological knowledge power to others. In the absence of mechanisms of shared delegation, hierarchies have a tendency to gel into authoritarian structures and to lose any awareness of their historic background, the outcome of compacts and social covenants. There is quite a difference between the acknowledgement of someone's authority as a more competent person in a precise domain, giving this person a collectively agreed upon mandate, which is verified regularly and is at all times revocable, and to blindly trust the supremacy of a technocrat. (In which case) The experts-priests' power becomes unassailable and unquestionable: it will always be presented as redeeming, and this often in millenarian tonalities: if you do not choose the right technician, you are lost (my son) [19]. The IT expert is, even more than a medical doctor, today's shaman: will my computer recover from its virus infection? Is there any hope for the data I lost? Will I ever find that file back, gone as by bewitchment? There must exist some magic formula, some working exorcism, even if it is of a (very) obscure kind. The expert authority leads to the paradoxical situation in which every action becomes a request to the (principle of an) external authority, and, by the same token, a statement of self-disparagement. First one has to confe
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium,
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Orwell, Huxley, and the Sino-American model (section 2, concluded) Profiling techniques used by Google, Facebook, and others can be applied to improve upon the relevance of individually targeted advertisements just as it can be used to sharpen individually targeted censorship and repression. If your friends are fans of this or that band, chance is that you will like this or that kind of music as well, and hence, by association, you are a potential buyer of it. And if your friends read the same subversive blog as you do, then they too are potential subversives, just like you. The algorithms (arriving at these results) are exactly the same. American and Chinese social formats share the same drive towards increased transparency. During the nineties (of the previous century) President Clinton was not able to push through his ideas about the 'information superhighway', but nothing proves that the Chinese Communist Party, which is very much alive and kicking, may not be successful in its attempts to create (its vision of) one big happy Peoples' Republic. With assistance from the American military-industrial complex, China is busy creating the prototype of a high-tech police state. The plan is to give each and every citizen an e-mail address, (associated with) a page on government-owned social media, an account for on-line purchase on authorized sites, and disk space to store personal data on regime-controlled servers. A kind of nationalized, Chinese Facebook, fused into a Chinese e-address, storing data on a Chinese iCloud, and able (accessorily), thanks to total profiling, to suggest what to buy next from the Chinese clone of Amazon. This scenario highlights the fact that the policies of the IT giants, and especially of those which require ever more sophisticated profiling to boost their profitability - as is the case with the four largest: Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon - is totally compatible with authoritarian control systems. These technologies correspond exactly to what modern dictatorships do wish for themselves. The (generalized) acceptance of (this) profiling is what makes the coming of this social model possible. Authoritarian capitalism, China-style, proves perfectly reconcilable with democratic capitalism, US-style. The two systems (actually) support each other. They are totally interdependent: on the financial plane, since the Chinese sovereign funds own a large part of America's public debt, and thus China could, given the amount of its Dollar reserves, explode Washington; and on the economic side, since American high-tech companies never could amass the kind of fabulous profits they make without low-cost industrial inputs from China. Just one example: were iPods, IPhones and Ipads manufactured in the West rather than in Shenzen industrial zone, their cost would be astronomical (Shenzen, near Hong Kong, was a small fishermen village thirty years ago, and is now a city with over 12 million inhabitants). Meanwhile, the FoxCom factory workers, who put together these splendid objects of desire, must sign contracts in which they pledge not to commit suicide - understandably so, since suicides far from uncommon, given the inhuman labor conditions prevailing in these workplaces. (And) It would be unthinkable to impose such labor conditions in the West. So the two systems share a need to optimally classify (identify) their own population. The United States, on one side, must make consumption goods available to guarantee the happiness written in the Dollar Constitution, while at the same time identify and neutralize potentially subversive threats to the system. China, on the other hand, needs to improve the material life conditions of the people without advancing the emergence of democratic politics, while it also needs to keep a firm check on ethical and religious issues, which are perennial sources of tension. Unlimited growth is (of course) the horizon common to both approaches. The rest of the world, meanwhile, does not sit still, and every country partakes as much as it can into this competition. Some countries go for the Orwellian approach, other prefer a more sophisticated model with subtle profiling, the Huxleyan way. The social network thus morphs into a trap where flat individualities, also known as /pancake people/, split up by profiling, trash around. At that stage it becomes ever more challenging to make them buy stuff because they are not even able to consume all they have accumulated, while they waste away phenomenal quantities of all the products they have at their disposal. They wiggle around in the search for personalized goodies, passive entertainment, and collective identities for effortless (self-)contemplation. On counter-moves and survival skills (section 3) Not all is lost, however. It is possible to remove data and to vanish from (digital) social networks. One
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Three,
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net Orwell, Huxley, and the Sino-American model (section 2) Online freedom is (counter)balanced by the demand for greater security, which in its turn begets a demand for more control. The wish to be anonymous is at odds with the will to go after those who present a threat to the social stability. In democratic regimes, this may be about paedophiles, serial killers, mafiosi, terrorists, subversives, etc. The wave of emotions caused by some spectacularly heinous crime or other sensational misdeed has triggered a crazy response: the enacting of laws trampling the most fundamental liberties. But all the same, a (potential) perpetrator is (made) aware that sHe is under surveillance. But since sHe is aware of this, and even in the (rare?) cases the perpetrator is not in cahoots with her/his watchers, a delinquent is actually freer that the rest of the population, which is subjected against her will to an increasingly stringent, blanket electronic control. And never mind the fact, already underlined, that control does not prevent crime. At most it simply eases the metting out of punishment, at least in theory, by further hardening of the courts and of the prison system. The pressure to regulate the Web goes together with a demand for more transparency, better traceability, and generally, the all-out probing of what happens on-line. Such requirements also allow for the bringing together of very heterogenous social categories. Parents associations are worried about the risks their kids may be exposed to. Lobbies of big media copyright owners (Hollywood, the music industry, publishers) all want to make investigation into, and removal of (on-line) protected content easier. Banks wish they could better verify their account holders' identities so as to cut online fraud back. Harassed ethnic minorities want to find out the identity of their tormentors. Xenophobe nationalists (which, once in power, and amidst generalized indifference, will give a totalitarian twist to already security-obsessed democracies), want to identify and register all foreigners in order to assuage their frustrations and bolster their group identity by going for ritual pogroms. Victims of violent incidents want to be able to denounce their persecutor(s) without risk of retaliation: on one hand they want the police to protect their anonymity, while at the same time demanding stricter control measures in order to identify criminals better. Outraged citizens want to see the income tax returns of corrupt politicians published so as to name and shame them in the media. Even authoritarian regimes like more transparency since they want to keep a close eye on their citizens . Transparency enhance the opportunities for surveillance and that is precisely the wish of next to all political powers. The 20th Century saw two major dystopias profoundly influence Western thought in the matter of surveillance: George Orwell's Big Brother in his novel /'1984'/ (1949) and Aldous Huxley's /'Brave New World'/ (1932, followed in 1958 /'Brave New World Revisited'/). Both authors (re)present opposite dystopias: Orwell, Englishman, was worried about total 'optical' control, whereas the Californian Huxley saw an upcoming emotional mutilation generated by out-of-control consumerism. For Orwell, the emergence of totalitarian systems marked a new phase, smacking of the Inquisition, in which technology serves to abolish any private life for citizens. Big Brother's omnipresent eye exercises a power both sadistic and oppressive, meant to modify reality through baneful, continual propaganda worded in newspeak, the language specifically created to limit the range of possible expressions. Every personal move must be completely predictable, and everybody must obey. The main character in '1984', Winston Smith, indeed discovers that neurologists in employ of the regime are working on the elimination of orgasm, so as to cancel desire as well, that tricky moment of psychic and physical instability, which could therefore well be able to trigger a revolt. In Huxley's vision, technology, on the contrary, is applied so as maximize pleasure, as (essential) part as of the consumption loop. In Huxley's Fordist consumerism, throwing away is far preferable to repairing, and citizens have no incentive whatsoever to think in an autonomous and critical way, since their pleasure find satisfaction even before having been formulated. For sure, not everyone's desire are identical: a rigid system of castes, from 'Alphas' to 'Epsilons' obtains, managed by edgenic control. Different categories of consumers exist, which are (pre)assigned by their consumption of specific goods and services. But then, exces has stumped desire, so that a compulsive system has been put in place: sexual promiscuity is encouraged, family
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Three,
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III The Freedoms of the Net On-line revolution and couch activism: between myth and reality (section #1, concluded) The best organized repressive regimes also know how to make use of the same methods as their dissenters, something that yet again demonstrates - if there was still any need to do so - that technology is not neutral. For purpose of censorship, the Saudi government has launched many DDoS attacks - one of the 'weapons' popularized by Anonymous [**]. Philosophy has been banned for years in the Sheiks' universities, since philosophy makes you think with your own brain. Western philosophy is forbidden in Saudi Arabia, furthering that country's schizophrenic position as privileged purveyor to Western governments on one side, and largest reservoir of islamist fundamentalism on the other [and largest funder of the latter - tranls]. In 2006 Tomaar.net was started by Saudis to discuss philosophy, sharing forbidden links and resources which were nonetheless reachable on-line. Being in Arabic, it had also many non-Saudi followers. But the (government's) surveillance being better and better managed and performing made it easy to trace every visitor (suspect). The Saudi government first blocked access to Tomaar from Internet nodes within its territory. Users responded by going for anonymization software and censorship-bypassing proxies. An arm races ensued. The Saudi government launched DDoS attacks against Tomaar's server in the United States. Nowadays, Tomaar.net is dead on the Web [9]. Dissident sites and activist webpages have equally been DDoS-ed in/from Burma, Byelorussia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia. The resulting feeling of powerlessness (among dissidents) is heightened by the fact that Western government, while extolling Internet freedom and condemning censorship and repression, still back authoritarian governments through economic, financial and military agreements. This only serves to strengthen such governments at the expense of the very dissidents the West claims to support. And then one should not forget that democratic governments too practice censorship, including by way of DDoS attacks, to prevent their own citizens to access allegedly subversive contents [see note **]. All said and done, even if social media run by American private enterprises do play the role Western media claim they do, the triumph of democracy is unlikely to be the outcome of corporates-owned instruments. In well-oiled dictatorships like China, Facebook access is blocked not so much because the hierarchs don't like its (politics of) radical transparency, but because that social network is viewed as a product of American imperialism. The much criticized collaboration between Google and the NSA in 2010, the accusation leveled by Google about attacks by Chinese hackers, the fact that Google also openly pulled out of China in protest because of the censorship measures it was asked to implement, all this did not very much help either. And who could blame China for perceiving these firms as spies in the sold of Washington? In China, the local Facebook, Twitter and Google clones are directly controlled by the government, unlike in the United States where 'gentlemen agreements' are passed at boardroom level and where collaboration takes place in secrecy. The laboratories of the future 's consensual dictatorships will much improve this arrangement, nobody will worry any longer worries about being on Facebook and Twitter: everybody will know everything about all smut going on, public or private - and nothing will change. Anyone will be allowed to become part of the spectacle. Since everybody will be accomplice in banality and obscenity, nobody will evermore decry a scandal. It is even very likely that in a near future there will be full cooperation between social media enterprise and governments in the realm of surveillance infrastructure [***]. In the case of democratic regimes, preventive censorship of users and removal of contents under institutional pressure will, for instance, be clothed as defense of the commons (interests) against hate-speech, whereas under totalitarian regimes, private corporations have zero interest in defending dissidents' anonymity, since that will attract the ire of the people in power, while such users as a rule do not generate any advertisement profit of consequence. Inciting internauts to be (more and more) transparent, a push that goes together with the feverish fragmentation of (on-line) messages and the underlying decrease of attention (capacity) triggers extremist, simplistic posts and scuttles any attempts at formulating more complex arguments. Gravity's law rules here without mercy: the fall of a single tree sounds far louder that the whisper of a whole forest growing. And the mass media amplify even more this 'law of gravity'; catastrophes score higher on
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Three, section #1 (begin)
Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III
The Freedoms of the Net
(section 1)
On-line revolution and couch activism: between myth and reality
Occupy's media exposure and Anonymous' logistic and technical support
bring us back to considerations on the perspectives and practices of
(political) engagement, democracy and on-line organization. (Digital)
Social networks have become successful because of the opportunities to
make and maintain contacts they offer: potentially, their constituency
encompasses the whole world. However, it is not to the user to make a
choice about how to establish that contact with others, but it is her/his
service provider, who, by using his 'default power' decides as he pleases
on the functionalities and mode of operation of this shared environment.
(Now it turns out that) It is easier to engage on-line than to commit
oneself into an off-line ('real world') organization. For example, the
effort needed to create a Facebook group to collect funds for refugees of
this or that environmental or other catastrophe is of a totally different
order than the resources mobilization required to build up a sort-alike
initiative in an non-digital, off-line setting. Moreover, when it comes to
facing the brutal realities of non-virtual organizing - Byzantine
bureaucracies, group discussions going no-where, material hurdles, etc. -
the non-digital citizen feels fatally powerless, whereas his on-line
counterpart is imbued with a feeling of omnipotence that goes with being
'on the Net'. The main strength of couch activism is that it offers a
simulacrum of participation, going with a good whack of 'Like' and 'Share
this Link', while one can fume with indignation about all the world's
misery, well-protected behind screens allowing for this 'sharing
experience', all provided and run by other (commercial) parties 'for our
own good'.
The Western medias' enthusiasm for the 'Arab Spring', and, not long after,
for the Iranian Green Movement, springs forth from the techno-eagerness
and the Internet-centrist perspective we wrote about in the first part of
this book. But, even more deeply, it is the outcome of a blind faith in
information as the purveyor of truth. Activists, and, generally, the
citizens of Western democracies are so much reality-hungry that they have
become convinced that you only need to remove the screed of censorship to
let democracy blossom. (In this perspective) Freedom is therefore the
result of a proper use of appropriate technology, and Information shall
thus release the Holy Host of the democratic gospel: if the Chinese were
allowed to communicate freely, the Party hierarchs would be swept out just
like the Soviet Politbureau ones in 1989. One can bet on the fact that all
coming insurrections will be read through the (distorting) prism of
liberation tech. But we should remember Gil Scott Heron's words: "you will
not be able to stay home, brother. (...) Because the revolution will not
be televised" [1x].
The technological 'glaze' that covers everything these days turns into a
one-size-fits-all garment allowing for 'cut-and-paste' analysis of all
social contexts, however different. And foremost, it also produces
preventive solutions to all social problems. (In this view,) Class
oppression is the result of communicative misunderstandings, of inaccurate
information. This is precisely the discourse of the technocrats who
provide (Internet) acces and/or shape the communication tools, and who
furnish politicians with bespoke marketing strategies [2]. A freer society
demands an intensification of information's circulation by accelerating
transactions and bettering the networks' interconnectedness. Here again,
technology plays a reassuring role by convincing 'honest citizens in the
West' that their standpoints and attitudes are Okay. The emotional getting
closer, enabled and caused by being witness of repression, and that almost
in real time, translates into a generalized support of the cause of
liberty (of the people). However, the walls that must fall to achieve this
are not, at least most of them, technological fire-walls, but social,
political, and cultural obstacles of major proportion.
One can summarize the rebuttal (technological) progressive will most often
voice when confronted with the sort of radical critiques we have developed
in these pages: every tool can be put to use in a revolutionary way.
However, within the Facebook aquarium (the 'real' thing, not the book -
transl.) we are constantly bombarded by /stimuli/ of information. In this
downpour of information, political content gets hopelessly mixed up with
all other contents, and does not have an autonomous space to it self - and
never will. The relationship of one to many, the illusion of 'spreading
the news' at a mouse click sho
