On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:42:22AM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> For instance when I read Geert here, someone whom I held accountable all this
> time for his netiquette violations, his texts are very readable from a mobile
> mail client. When I read Carlo von Lynx instead, a man notably very
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:38:03AM +0200, Geert Lovink wrote:
> Peak data is related to the distinct concept of data depletion when the moral
> cost of ‘surveillance capitalism’ outweighs the economic benefit for the few
> and society as a whole starts to decline because of an excess of social
It's out, and I'm already seeing more rants than love
for it. My rant would be, it's 20 years late so we'd
need something much harsher now, but "disruptive" people
prefer to leave the Internet unregulated and maintain
the condition whereby users are fodder for surveillance
capitalism. Here's one
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 01:56:08PM -0400, Miro Visic wrote:
> But the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization has
> subscribed to cult of death and destruction. Baghdad, Falluja, Belgrade...
> Libya, Syria... A crime after crime.
>From the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established
Back to Patrice' original post:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:20:23PM +0100, patrice riemens wrote:
> Option Zero: There will be no war. Putin will enslave Ukraine after having
> laid it to waste, annex part of it, and transform the rest in a vassal state,
> or whatever 'solution' he has in mind
I came across two aspects that I hadn't read about
before elsewhere:
* Myth of Wealthy Russia
To uphold his authoritarian leadership safely, Putin
needs all neighbouring countries to be poorer than
Russia. So far Ukraine has been fulfilling this
requisite, but its recent democratisation,
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340
‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes - POLITICO
Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia
watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary
TL;DR
1. Sweden returns to cold war tactics to battle fake news;
2. Habermas himself is afraid social media may break democracy;
3. Education is not the answer.
1.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/06/sweden-returns-to-cold-war-tactics-to-battle-fake-news
A top
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:25:05PM +, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> Part of what makes the 'vaccine passport' scheme so worrisome is the extent to
> which it makes the decision to not carry a mobile phone less tenable and more
> difficult. Speaking personally, I do not use a mobile phone, largely
Thanks folks for the kind words, also the ones I received in private.
Luca, I hope you will find your way back to actual science. <3
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:19:34PM +, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> The problem, which in my view is the elephant in the room, is about the extent
> to which
No-one has replied to this one, so I'll carefully try to do so.
After all it happens to be a reply to a post of mine.
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Luca Barbeni wrote:
> Hi to everyone,
> I don't write frequently on the list but I'm pretty tired of the
> association of provax with
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:22:45AM +0100, Alex Foti wrote:
> let's win the science wars to prevail in the climate and class struggles,
Yes, please.
Thank you for emphasising the issue of science in all of this.
TL;DR:
How big is the impact of culturally accepted anti-science
and will this
Hurts me to hear of your reports. This madness is happening in
nearly all countries, binding well-meaning people to the wrong
leaders, at different degrees of threat to the physical vicinity
or even the remainders of democracy.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 06:32:06PM +, Alessandro Delfanti wrote:
Thank you Luke and Felix, I found you both enlightening!
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:25:50AM +1300, Luke Munn wrote:
> Platforms do possess power - and this is precisely why it's important to
> try to understand their technical operations, to grasp their power
> relations, and to examine how they
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:32:44AM +, Hoofd, I.M. (Ingrid) wrote:
> Such lockdowns, health pass mandates, and blanket vaccine rollouts clearly
> attempt to posit some kind of 'public good' or 'solidarity' over more
> individualist considerations; sentiments which on the surface appear to be
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 01:09:18PM +0100, Tilman Baumgärtel wrote:
> I just finished a research project on "Piazza virtuale" by Van Gogh
> TV, an early attempt to create a social network via TV, that took
> place at documenta 9 in 1992, shortly before the internet changed
> the rules for remote
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 07:04:49PM +0100, Felix Stalder wrote:
> A bunch of people -- mostly regarded as fools (QAnons and daytraders) by
> professionals -- storming the citadels of power, coordinated over social
> media, creating havoc in the process.
Oh, good observation!
But does that mean
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 10:06:13AM -0600, Brian Holmes wrote:
> Those who want to agonize about the role of the Internet in undermining
> democracy and sparking civil conflict, well, I think you should investigate
> this.
I feel summoned up and I did. In my perspective these folks
mentioned in
This 'Social Dilemma' documentary is triggering a new kind of
response… people looking up from their computer desks and
suddenly daring to judge how surveillance isn't actually a
threat at all, because… literally… "so what".
After all the Snowden revelations and Cambridge Analytica
scandal
I'll keep it short as I've said it before some years ago…
I think the pro-active moderation was the whole specialty
of nettime, fostering high quality and inclusiveness. Since
you dropped that (possibly because it was too much work, so
I'm not blaming) the list slowly lost its focus just as all
Late reply, but somebody brought it up only now...
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:37:46AM +0100, Geert Lovink wrote:
> Only an internal group of elite members was involved in the decision-making
> process (using the platform called Rousseau).
Incorrect. “Rousseau” is like internal.diem25.org — a
On 01/28/19 13:57, Joseph Rabie wrote:
> "...is to make wrongdoing technically impossible..."
>
> I guess that all we have to do is get Adam and Eve to regurgitate the
apple.
No, it's like introducing seat belts. Cars didn't have to stay so
dangerous as they were in the first decade.
On 01/28/19
On 28 Jan 2019, at 06:15, Patrice Riemens wrote:
> Heiko's remarks completely bypasses the fact (sorry, it's a fact) that the
> British 'Brexit' referendum was a clusterfaktap of major magnitude (&
> probably 'deliberate by default') in terms of how a real, valid referendum
> should be
Thanks for articulating your doubts, this is going to be interesting to
dig into.
On 01/27/19 09:48, Patrice Riemens wrote:
> James is right, I think, in believing Carlo's argument does not account
> for the rapid, 'liquid' change advertising, and the current economic
> dispensation in general
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:00:33PM +0100, Patrice Riemens wrote:
> Well, as I understood Shoshana Z, the pb is that you cannot, in the
> current dispensation, legislate something that would destroy the
> very basis on which today's version of capitalism is based. Making
> data gathering illegal is
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 07:06:39PM +, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> So it stands to reason that their money, and therefore capitalism itself,
> will build that mechanism to the fullest extent permitted by law, and until
> something changes, it is all legal.
That's why we were discussing to make
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Patrice Riemens wrote:
> And the problem with living through a
> revolution is that it’s impossible to take the long view of what’s
> happening. Hindsight is the only exact science in this business, and
> in that long run we’re all
I really like Francesca and Jaromil in person, but I once again
have some trouble following some of the logic just as I had
problems supporting d-cent at its time...
Francesca Bria wrote:
> Tech firms are emerging as new feudal lords. They control essential
> digital infrastructures – in this
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 09:01:23AM +0530, sebast...@rolux.org wrote:
> here in bombay, no-one cares about the cambridge analytica storm.
Yes, humanity has always had a problem focusing on the important
things. It is easier to focus on the symptoms of bad global
governance bringing us...
> wind
Could somebody please tell journalists and politicians
that this isn't the first time manipulation happens with
the help of Facebook?
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 07:47:32PM +0100, Geert Lovink wrote:
> Is it an idea to organize a
Bumped into an amazing documentary from 1994: depicting the future
of society in the age of the Internet. Some statements are funny or
sad for their naivity, some others are chilling as they predict the
advent of the great Internet monopolies.
"Visions Of Heaven and Hell" -
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 07:32:33AM -0600, Blake Stimson wrote:
> more and more varied cultural consumption than other generations and less
> access to power than other generations. Like any such generational marker,
> its realism for them is a badge of honor and a measure of strength and
>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andre Rebentisch wrote:
> and the conservative technologist (=us) then says: Who needs X, there is Y.
I guess I don't qualify. Slack, Mattermost and Matrix bring a lot
to the table that IRC doesn't provide.
> The real issue of the last decade is that
atize all the
> debates and proposals of the past 5-7 years of those that worked on
> alternative network architectures? Is the reasonable, noble and moral
> appeal a la Tim Berners-Lee the only one on offer?
I think Carlo von Lynx will say we need new privacy laws, and he's
right. Heather
I'll try a deconstruction from the perspective of having
"designed" a leaderless political organization...
On 04/23/2017 06:54 PM, Florian Cramer wrote:
> 1) The central demand of the 'March for Science', "evidence-based
> policies and regulations", is toxic and dangerous.
This approach has
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:43:28PM +0100, André Rebentisch wrote:
> The more common match term for "protocol power" as coined by the
> abstract seems to be the anglo-saxon "multistakeholderism" governance
> model. It is deeply embedded in their political culture. I assume it
> stems from a more
> On 26/Jan/17 07:00, carlo von lynX wrote:
> >We have been sold the notion that Protectionism is very
> >very bad and leads to "economic warfare".
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 07:35:34AM -0700, John Hopkins wrote:
> There is the old and persistent question of r
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 01:01:09PM +0100, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Thank you for an excellent expose of your position on world politics and
> your defense of the term "neoliberalism".
I was just exercising empathy towards people that use it more than me. ;)
> To begin with, hardly any
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 08:40:28AM +0100, Alexander Bard wrote:
>Dear Carlo
>My excuses for being rude in my response to you. And please understand
>moderators took notice too.
In retrospect I am unsure if replying publicly was actually useful
from my side as I believe in patient
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:34:05PM +0100, Alexander Bard wrote:
>Excuse me, but what kind of world do you live in?
>A world where all property is owned by nation-state governments as if
>they were all North Korean dictatorships? And the globe is a
>competetion for most evil
Very interesting in content, but the title is inappropriate.
When you have billions of people in agreement that the
documentation of say child abuse does not belong onto
the Internet, that is democratic censorship. And you could
say it is a legitimate form of censorship, fueled by basic
You may frequently encounter spin against unconditional basic
income, so you may find some counterspin useful. I took the
time to fact-check an article from Technology Review, and
found several claims to be wrong.
http://my.pages.de/davidhfreedman in reply to
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 11:41:33AM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> understand (ask yourself, has anyone of them read the DAO code
> before putting money on it?? It's the language, stupid!)
What I understood from the Forbes article is that the developers
of code are ignoring the legal implications
With its practices of JTRIG[1] and KARMA POLICE[2]
the UK government is responsible[3] for a massive
attack on democracy as the case of the Malvinas in
2008 has shown.[4] Does the new development represent
a chance to let the supporters of civil rights in the
European Commission dominate over the
In the spirit of nettime, I took the time to add thoughts to several
of the past contributions.
On 06/12/2016 10:41 PM, Gabriella "Biella" Coleman wrote:
>I certainly like this statement and think it has some valuable
>insights: [1]https://jacobian.org/writing/assholes/
Yes, by creating
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:42:20PM -0400, biella wrote:
> I think it is important to talk about what could have been done
> differently but I don't buy into this argument. There are plenty of
> institutions and organizations in hackerdom that are structured from
> many free software projects
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:07:59PM +0200, Patrice Riemens wrote:
> Making the rise of celebrities possible inevitably ensures the creation
> of a celebrity cult, itself the blueprint for individual failure. We
> should not have allowed ourselves to grow so big - as an aggregate. In
> my
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
