Re: <nettime> Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.

[John Preston <wcerfgba@riseup.net>]

I believe the fundamental issue goes beyond requiring just public
ownership/operation of these technologies but also public understanding,
and ties in with the HCI discussion in parallel thread "Has net-art lost
political significance?".

I am interested in build a new computer that is drastically simpler than
what we currently have, and with some different things to focus on in
its design (eg computer as a document system before a calculator).

To give an example, say someone was organising some direct action. There
are some communications tools like maybe Signal, that should provide
privacy and the basic utility of instant messaging. But consider if we
want a tool like Doodle (group scheduling, https://doodle.com/ ). Unless
someone has build a 'secure Doodle', there is no way that 99% of users
could slot this in to their use case. Instead, if a computing platform
is simple enough, you could say "oh I'll just wrap the Doodle component
in our Signal channel" or something, there should be obvious ways to
compose everything within the system, and that needs to be part of the
user experience.

The kinds of redevelopment I am talking about are ongoing, there is a
whole legacy of people doing research in a similar thread, so now I ask
why have we not yet realised such a project, or rather what is needed
for further development/research? I think simpler computing hardware,
even simpler than a RasPi, and then building up a custom environment
from there, might be part of the answer.

</ramble>

J

On 2019-07-07 08:06, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> Platforms (Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, and so on) are not the answer; they are
> operated by illegitimate gatekeepers who have no place in the conversation or
> its management.  Some of us would never use such a method to communicate, nor
> should we be expected to do so.
> 
> Suggest that in an ideal world there would be no gatekeepers at all other than
> those who use or (if applicable) moderate the list.  Lists would generally be
> invitation-only, even as the policy for some lists might be to furnish an
> invitation to anyone who asks.  Mail might use SMTP but not DNS or IP addresses
> to identify individual persons; all persons would be able to generate as many
> unique IDs as they want and use nothing other than those IDs to send messages
> and requests for invitations.
> 
> But we would need to decide that the benefit of such a system outweighs
> the cost of excluding people who would find anything that avoids
> platformisation to be too hard.  Importantly, such a system would actually be
> more inclusive than platforms, since platforms assign the power to exclude to
> those who don't deserve that power.
> 
> Geoff
> 
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:31:29AM +0200, Andr?? Rebentisch wrote:
>> Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman:
>> >
>> > Hi Andr?,
>> >
>> > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead?? I'm very far out of the
>> > loop working mostly offline for the last decade.
>>
>> Dear Max,
>>
>> almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting
>> anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list
>> infrastructure channels.
>>
>> Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online
>> communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack,
>> mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude
>> channel rules became obsolete.
>>
>> A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality
>> communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or
>> opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior
>> consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead
>> to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when
>> you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content
>> from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop
>> up again after an archive regeneration etc.
>>
>> Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an
>> exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of
>> Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that
>> country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on
>> his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to
>> converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites)
>> could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot
>> respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk.
>>
>> Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't
>> moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are
>> suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no
>> org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project.
>>
>> You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list
>> communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead
>> communication channels come to new light.
>>
>> Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them.
>>
>> > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a
>> > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless
>> > of technological advancement).? You can put a bunch of content in an
>> > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet.
>>
>> Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges?
>>
>> > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content.? If no one
>> > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten
>> > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list?
>>
>> Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose
>> the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious
>> debate and thought.
>>
>> Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the
>> insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always
>> hate mobs that try to engage us.
>>
>> Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but
>> to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart)
>> explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am
>> after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ
>>
>> 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online
>> debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society...
>> only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past
>> and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or
>> her pivotal moment.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andr?
>>
>>
>> #  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
>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
> #  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
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  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
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: