Patrice Riemens on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 02:35:51 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Ippolita Collective: In the Facebook Aquarium (Part One, #2, 1) |
NB I the previous (first) installment of this feuilleton it was erroneously mentionned that the commercial rights for this book were resting with Feltrinelli editore (as for the Google book). In fact, the (commercial) rights rest exclusively with the Ippolita Collective. So the correct mention is: "This book and translation are published under Creative Commons license 2.0 (Attribution, Non Commercial, Share Alike). Commercial distribution requires the authorisation of the copyright holders: Ippolita Collective < info@ippolita.net> " (Part One, #2,1) The era of democratic /attention-distraction/ The 'Web 2.0' does not stand for a set of new technologies [3], but rather refers to a (new) mode of behaviour: to stay on-line all the time in order to chat with friends, post pictures, texts and videos, to share all these with one's /community/, to remain connected, to be part of the 'Zeitgeist', of the on-line world. 'Share!' is probably the slogan best suited to describe this phenomenon. And maybe it's also the biggest stupidity ever invented, but then - going by the numbers, the public is for it, massively. E-mails, IRC chats, blogs, mailing lists, feeds, peer-to-peer, VoIP - you name it, wasn't that enough to share with? Nope, because as per the belief in unlimited growth, the gospel of Californian turbo-capitalism, one always needs more, bigger (or smaller but more powerful), faster. Many among us bemoan this, and yet we're doing it too, embracing with enthusiasm to-day's ideology: our latest mobile is more powerful than our old desk-top computer, our new laptop has more capacity that the old server at the office, this just-on-the-market messaging program enables us to send attachments larger than anything we have been sending before - combined, and our new digital camera has a better resolution than our old television set! With Facebook, the "we want it all and we want it now - but then faster!" has entered a new, quasi-religious phase. Salvation is the promise, and "Share and Thou Shall Be Happy!" is the message. With more than nine hundred million users in May 2012 (*), being the population of United States and European Union combined, exponential growth, a global scale of operation and yet organised as (separate) groups of "friends", well, that is something which couldn't escape the prying eyes of the Ippolita Collective. And indeed, a radical critique of Facebook is a must, not only because one should always go after the biggest quarry, but also because such is part and parcel of Ippolita's core tactics. This as we want to develop new (technological) instruments of self-management and of autonomy which are not pressed on us from above under a well-policed theory, but which have their basis in every-day usages and subversion practices on which we want to build our future worlds. Now, if you are Facebook fan (or of LinkedIn, MySpace, Groupon, Twitter, etc.), and that to the point that you are unable or unwilling to take a closer look at what is happening behind the scenes, then maybe you should stop reading here. Our aim is namely not to convince you that Facebook is the devil incarnate; if we study social networks here, the aim is merely to arrive at a better understanding of the present. Hence, this is not an 'objective' enquiry. Starker: our line is entirely subjective, opinionated, partisan, and based on a crystal clear postulate: the 'Web 2.0', and primarily Facebook, is a phenomenon of technocratic delegation, and is as such dangerous. It doesn't matter wether the instruments themselves are good or bad, or wether we love or hate them, and it doesn't matter either wether we are captive and deluded users or on the contrary, slick 'n' smart /geeks/. The key assumption that underlies all the research conducted by the Ippolita Collective is very simple: to connect to a network means tracing a line between a point of origin and another point. In a certain way, it is the same as opening up one's window to another world. It is not that easy to engage in exchanges and to open up, because neither is immediate or natural. Specific competences, which one must develop in accordance with one's personal needs and capacities, are necessary. And there is also no such thing as absolute security - the only security you can be sure of is when you do not connect - at all. But since we want to get in touch with /the others/ and because we want to create tools to make this possible, we are not going to renounce connectivity. Yet at the same time, we are unwilling to lamely adopt al the 'new new' tech gadgets. Our aim is rather to create tools for liberation you can't do without. The 'rhizomatic' diffusion of social networks creates its own dynamics of inclusion/exclusion which are the same as those we witnessed during the boom days of mobile phones. People without a Facebook account are part of no community at all! To put it even more strongly: they simply do not exist, and it becomes difficult for them to stay in touch with their usual contacts. This holds even more true for those who hadn't started building up relationships before the magical era of social networks. Teenagers, hence, face even more peer pressure, and that leads them to adopt these new technologies exclusively - at the expense of other modes of communication. OK, on the bright side, they are usually nimbler and savvier than adults in managing these, and having been born and raised in a world that was already electronically connected, they should know the up and down aspects by own experience. But on the dark side, unfortunately, they usually lack historical memory: they believe [like all generations, ever -transl ;-)], if wrongly so, that they are totally different from all generations before them, that they are facing totally new problems and challenges, and that they therefore need to have totally new, innovative instruments at their disposal. And yet, to be made an ass on one's Facebook wall looks suspiciously akin to all the bad jokes all teenagers have been showeling on each other when they operate as a group, and this regardless of epoch or latitude. Social issues are human issues before anything else: they are always relations- and environment specific. Despite high resolution and touch-screens, 'Civilisation 2.0' looks very much like all civilisations before it, as human beings have always felt the need to attract each other's attention. They still need to feed, to sleep, to maintain friendships, and to lend some signification to the world they inhabit. They still fall in love, experience disappointments, they hope and dream, they err, they go on the rampage, and they harm and kill each other. To put it differently, humans must be aware that their existence has its limits both in time (the horrible reality of death) and in space (the scandal that there are /others/, and a world outside) - and this even in the era of digital social networks. We will see that, in the era of global /attention-distraction/, it has not become any easier to develop and implement well-adapted policies, as everybody is constantly busy chatting, photographing, publishing, tweeting, etc. so much so, that they have no time left to engage in genuine (non-virtual) relationships. (to be continued) --------------------------- [3] Ippolita, Geert Lovink, Ned Rossiter, The Digital Given. 10 Theses on web 2.0, at: http://fourteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-096-the-digital-given-10-web-2-0-theses/ ........ Translated by Patrice Riemens This translation project is supported and facilitated by: The Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/) The Antenna Foundation, Nijmegen (http://www.antenna.nl - Dutch site) (http://www.antenna.nl/indexeng.html - english site under construction) Casa Nostra, Vogogna-Ossola, Italy # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org