www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> OUR RIGHT TO NET: AN INTERVIEW WITH ALESSANDRO GILIOLI
Geert Lovink on Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:01:31 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> OUR RIGHT TO NET: AN INTERVIEW WITH ALESSANDRO GILIOLI


OUR RIGHT TO NET: AN INTERVIEW WITH ALESSANDRO GILIOLI
by Marco Mancuso

from Digimag 47 - September 2009
http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1542
English version online soon

Digimag interviewed Alessandro Gilioli, well known journalist, writer,
editor and blogger of  "L'Espresso"(monthly magazine edited by the same
editorial group of "La Repubblica") and Derrick de Kerckhove. On July  
14th
2009 a virtual strike took place, a strike on the main Italian blogs,
organized by Alessandro Gilioli with the collaboration of bloggers  
from all
political areas. The initiative asked Italian blogs to stop posting  
all the
same hour, and to just post the logo of the protest online, with a  
link to
the statement for the Right to Net:  http://dirittoallarete.ning.com/.  
The
Social Networking platform worked as a collector of posts and free  
opinions,
as well as a container for the images of all the bloggers who gagged
themselves by taking part in the protest. The project also involved a  
sit-in
and meeting in Piazza Navona in Rome, at 7pm on Tuesday, the 14th of  
July,
and a symbolic gagging of the bloggers that were present as well as the
statue that represents the freedom of speech, the statue of Pasquino.  
The
reason of the protest was the Angelino Alfano (ITalian Minister of  
Justice)
decree on wiretapping, which has in fact "muted" a whole series of  
bloggers
on the Net, threatening them with legal action and hefty fines. If the
so-called obligation to rectify, thought of 60 years ago for the  
Press, is
imposed on all blogs (even amateur ones) with the foreseen hefty  
pecuniary
fines, it would actually put a silencer on online conversations and  
freedom
of speech. A very strong action against freedom of press in Italy

-------------------

I would say that it was almost inevitable. To live and work in a  
country, as
democratic as it seems, where the interdependent rapport between  
politics
and mass media is much tighter than in any other country in the world
(excluding those openly totalitarian regimes that we mentioned for  
example
in last month's Persepolis 2.0 article, of course) and does not allow  
for
libertarian utopias of any sort if they discuss any subject that is a
fundamental part of democracy, like the freedom of the Press, the  
right to
an opinion, the freedom of thought.

To think that the Internet, Blogs, P2P and Social Networks could be  
exempt
from censorship and restrictions from the government, to hope that they
would continue to be completely free territories forever, was absolutely
naive in my opinion: there are many negative accounts of this, on a  
national
and international level, some of which have been discussed in Digimag  
during
the past few years.

Regarding these themes, the Italian government seems to have already
triggered an unprecedented control and restriction policy in the Western
"democracies" and that, as the guests of this interview Alessandro  
Gilioli
and Derrick De Kerckhove emphasise, could bring up a series of  
amendments
and decrees that constitute as a dangerous precedent to be imitated by  
other
"democracies" all over the world. In fact it seems that in Italy, the
freedom of the Press as we know it, is a right that exists merely on  
paper
and much less in practice: how to interpret the latest masked government
action against the freedom of thought and of the Press, the Alfano  
decree on
wiretapping, which has in fact "muted" a whole series of bloggers on the
Net, threatening them with legal action and hefty fines? If the so- 
called
obligation to rectify, thought of 60 years ago for the Press, is  
imposed on
all blogs (even amateur ones) with the foreseen hefty pecuniary fines,  
it
would actually put a silencer on online conversations and freedom of  
speech.

In a government obsessed by controlling the mass media, intent on  
putting a
silencer on every possible voice of protest, fundamentally ignorant to
social and economical dynamics that make up the Internet, P2P, Open  
Sourcing
and Social Networking, it's almost inevitable to be afraid of that  
which you
cannot control, of the so-called "word getting out" that could slip  
through
the small mesh of an online community, as small as it can be, that has  
the
potential to grow and could soon become politically important (if
well-represented, of course).

Therefore in protest against the Alfano Decree, on the 14th of July a
virtual strike took place, a strike on the main Italian blogs. This  
happened
thanks to the initiative of Alessandro Gilioli (Journalist, writer,  
Editor
and blogger of "L'Espresso" with his "Piovono Rane" feature), and the
collaboration of bloggers from all political areas (and non-political  
areas
too) and representatives of various parties and associations, the  
initiative
asked Italian blogs to just post the logo of the protest online, with  
a link
to the statement for the Right to Net:  http:// 
dirittoallarete.ning.com/.
The Social Networking platform worked as a collector of posts and free
opinions, as well as a container for the images of all the bloggers who
gagged themselves by taking part in the protest. The project also  
involved a
sit-in and meeting in Piazza Navona in Rome, at 7pm on Tuesday, the  
14th of
July, and a symbolic gagging of the bloggers that were present as well  
as
the statue that represents the freedom of speech, the statue of  
Pasquino.

The initiative inevitably caught my attention, be it for the objective
importance of the theme in question, the fact that Digimag naturally  
tends
to want to know about projects done by the vivacious voices of its  
guests
(that can be artistic and of protest), be it for the opportunity to be  
able
to confront myself with a free-thinker whose activity and presence on  
the
Net, in my opinion, are very important for our country, for the  
distribution
of a "new" form of hybrid journalism between the traditional form,  
connected
more closely to Print and TV and to the dynamics of classic  
editorials, and
what the media have erroneously crowned as being "citizen  
journalism" (which
I prefer to call "free journalism"). Derrick de Kerckhove (whom I thank
dearly) also answered my questions, an essayist who needs no  
introduction,
an opinionist, Director of McLuhan Program in Culture & Technology and
Professor of the Department of French of the University of Toronto,  
who in
someway has been closely following the evolution of Alessandro Gilioli's
project.

Marco Mancuso: I would like to begin this interview by asking you to  
give me
an initial overview of the initiative of the "blog strike" that took  
place
on the 14th of July after the creation of the platform The Right to Net.
Personally I consider this initiative to be an important step toward  
the use
of the Net as a real platform for discussion, thought, gathering: for
example The Right to Net has united many informative blogs and this is  
very
useful for all those people that wish to find their way through the
(hopefully) free and independent universe of information from the  
bottom,
that was quickly labelled Citizen Journalism by the media. At the same  
time
I ask myself, and ask you, aside from the act of protest and strike that
were absolutely legitimate and justified, what practical and concrete
effects has the initiative been having on a social and political  
level, that
I presume is still thriving, and what effects can it have in the  
future? And
more generally speaking, in what direction, in your opinion, should  
work be
done so that protest and gathering initiatives on the Net can have a  
real
and efficient fall back in the real world of our lives?

Alessandro Gilioli: We'll see the "specific" results of the protest  
later
on: if and when the "blogkiller" enforcement will be thrown out by  
Alfano,
as we hope. It's being discussed, there's an amendment that will  
probably be
voted for: I am probably "rashly optimistic" on the hypothesis that the
specific objective will be reached. But two results have already been
obtained. First of all, the initiative has brought the question of
communication "from the bottom" in Italy (and the ignorance of our
politicians) outside the self-referential circuit of blogs. Dozens of
Italian and foreign newspapers (like El Mundo) and TV stations (from  
Sky to
the BBC) have talked about it - so that they could dissent from it. A  
lot of
politicians and actors in politics asked themselves for the first time,
"what are these blogs and why are they so pissed off"?, which is  
something.
The second result was the fact of getting the blog sector to discuss and
think about its own role and (why not?) its responsibilities. In  
particular
the passage from a phase of simple "defensive rejection" against  
stupid laws
(D'Alia, Carlucci, ddl Alfano, etc.), to a phase of "purposeful
counterattack" to stimulate the legislators to produce laws that keep in
mind the different dynamics of online communication from the bottom  
compared
to the vertical journalism of Print, to be inspired toward opening,
innovation, sharing and neutrality of the Net, instead of the  
"terrorised
prohibition" with which they've made their moves so far.

Derrick de Kerckhove: The extension of news from the official press, the
Twitter-like usage, the use of defensive technology, and contributions  
of
Italian intelligence. What fall back can be produced by protest  
initiatives
on the Net is an interesting question. It's true that only now are  
social
networks beginning to generate some effect; citizen journalism through
social networks involves increasing amounts of people and not only on  
blogs
but also other forms of communication. It could have a very strong  
effect on
the government, despite its dependence on the number of people who are
connected, and the ratio between the number of people on the Internet  
and
the actual population. I think for example that Italy will find its  
point of
maturity on the Internet in the future just as America found its own  
with
the election of Obama, the highest moment of mass distribution of the  
force
of the Internet compared to that of classic media. It means that  
strategies
can be found to greatly augment the impact of social networks, which  
have an
influence on political power, a power that we can call ecological.  
Politics
should be ecological.
  Another aspect is the impact that such a law has on people's lives,  
that
represses the freedom of expression. Let's hope that we will not see a
competition in Italy between the organisation of a Network that defends
itself and the organisation of a government that attacks it. The
contributions of Italian intelligence are clearly and heavily  
threatened if
such a situation arises, the emancipation of Italian minds must not be
blocked.

Marco Mancuso: On the basis of the recent government anti-blog orders,  
as
for example the Alfano decree this past July, what are, in your  
opinion, the
actual and potential risks that the Internet faces, concerning freedom  
of
thought but also free circulation and sharing of files, ideas and  
materials,
movements of protest and gathering and autonomous processes of  
creation of
new professions and economies, of the defence of one's own privacy and
personal data? In other, words, how long will the Net remain a free
territory as we have known it in the past 10 years and how dangerous  
could
the illusion that it will always be a marginal territory in contemporary
society be?

Alessandro Gilioli: In Italy the danger of the Net comes from a  
combination
of intolerance, fear and ignorance of politicians, especially those of  
the
PDL and UDC parties. Intolerance: Berlusconi can't stand hostile media  
in
general, he tells people to not advertise with them, he dreams of an  
Italy
of Minzolini communicators. Fear: politicians do not know the Net but  
can
suss how little it can be controlled compared to mainstream media, in  
other
words that if a piece comes out on the Net that embarrasses them they  
don't
have a editor they can call the next day to ask for "compensatory"  
articles,
they don't have a reporter from the Palazzo that they can walk arm-in- 
arm
with along the Montecitorio Transatlantic, they don't have any kind of
blackmail power that they have always had over editors. Ignorance: most
politicians don't know what horizontal communication is, the insertion  
of
content in blogs or social networks, and mechanically tend to apply laws
that were thought up 60 years ago for Print. Faced with all this, the  
way in
which the Italian Net will live in the next few years depends mostly  
on us,
that is to say, those people who want it to be free and plural: how we  
will
know how to move and influence the Palazzo, giving up on isolated and  
snobby
positions and facing the reality out there. But also avoiding vanity and
personal ambitions, with every person working at the service of  
everyone.

Derrick de Kerckhove: The problem is in the fact that the Italian law  
does
not constitute as the exception but is the norm. Right now the tendency
toward the norm is visible, predictable in many details, in China,  
France,
Italy and in Iran. The next law will require the creation of an internal
department of defence (like the Basso fortress in Florence, built by the
Medici, non to defend the city but to defend themselves from the  
city). The
danger does not solely exist for Italy; the danger is that every
conservative government can imitate the Italian example at any stage. At
this time it's clear how the governments are tempted, and one is going
beyond temptation, the Italian one, to control people in an absolute  
way.
It's
a new and innovative way to control the population. It's also  
interesting to
see to what point the image of Italy, that is not seen under the best  
light
right now with Berlusconi's government, will continue to get worse to  
the
eyes of the whole world with this new law. This is not a positive  
example
for a country whose inspiration tends to reach toward an openness that  
is
very similar to the American standard. The American way means an  
openness
that is under surveillance, but with a sense of free space, this sense  
can
also be classified as ecological. It gives the population the  
possibility to
live with breathing space and I think that in Italy, to have a  
reputation
similar to that of China on the Internet is not becoming.  But the other
aspect that worries me is the tendency that the right wing governments  
have
to research a sort of absolute control over people, to be carried out in
many ways. If the Italian "experiment" (that I hope will never come to  
be)
becomes a model for other governments in the rest of the world, if that
should really happen, we will be lost.

Marco Mancuso: There's an interesting post on The Right to Net  
concerning a
comment of the lawyer Guido Scorza, an judicial IT expert, who talks  
about
the risks that channels like Youtube are facing. In the light of the
previous question don't you think that it's increasingly necessary to  
create
an open and possibly shared discussion with those very people who can
illustrate, clarify and eventually legally help all those people who  
work,
express themselves and communicate on the Net and through Social  
Networks?
Don't you think that in this sense, a platform like The Right to Net  
should
discuss this deeply, clarify as much as possible and eventually help to
create a legal case history that can constitute as a reference point  
for all
those people who find themselves in dire straits in the future?

Alessandro Gilioli: Scorza is doing a great job, be it in terms of  
judicial
information be it concerning the project for the literacy of  
politicians.
The Right to Net is just one of the many platforms where action can  
begin.
To me it seems useful that the debate and eventual "political"  
initiatives
are as flexible and plural as possible, even when offline. Let's not  
fall
into the trap of thinking of the Net as a problem that only regards
bloggers. It's an issue that concerns all citizens, as an open  
democracy.

Derrick de Kerckhove: The question is very interesting! I absolutely  
agree
with the request to create forms of information, discussion and  
assistance
for all those people who are in difficulty concerning the problem of the
forms of control. In Piazza Navona the people present at the event  
were less
than those who had taken part online, this probably depends on how the  
news
about the strike action was distributed but also depends on the  
novelty of
it.... I hope that the number of Italians capable of expressing their
consent/dissent to these laws increases greatly because it is their  
right as
well as their duty, in other words the more people participate the  
more they
create/whip-up a case of legal interest... finding a way to protect this
"Right to Net" with international laws. For example, in part of the  
decree
by Alfano there is a constitutional illegitimacy in relation to the  
art.21,
what are we waiting for to denounce this in uproar? A thorough juridical
study would be best, to guarantee this "Right to the Net", to "build",
through a scientific committee made up of Italian jurors, substantial  
legal
support, with great visibility on the Net, that underlines the contrasts
between ddl Alfano and the Constitution.

Marco Mancuso: Social Networks and virtual/real identity. How can the
project "The Right to the Net" be compared to the universe of Social
Networks, how do they or will they use dynamics of integration with
platforms like Delicious, Twitter and Facebook (I don't mean integrating
videos from Youtube, Vimeo or Digg, that is commonplace now), ad most  
of all
how will the unsolved dilemma of giving a face, a body, a physicality  
for
action to that virtual identity that exists behind every account that
participates to your initiative? What dynamics should be used as  
leverage? I
ask you because you had the courage to face this topic, in the moment  
when
you asked people to participate physically in Piazza Navona on the  
15th of
July while doing the "blog strike" online at the same time.

Alessandro Gilioli: That's the point. To make the issue of the Net in  
Italy
come out of the closed circuit of bloggers and Net-Fans is  
fundamental. You
need to work at it every day. Every person must, with his or her own  
means -
in order to create a civil battle for everyone. It's also an economical
battle: the innovation of Italy - is very slow and scarce compared to  
other
countries, not just European ones - and does not just pass through the
widening of the band, but also through the widening of collective
consciousness. A virtual reality that distinctly sets against physical
reality no longer exists (if it ever did): the virtual is a part of the
real - and an important part too. The "Physical" encounter in Piazza  
Navona
had a symbolic value. In this, I believe that whoever has acted on the  
Net
for many years must step forward, avoid feeling snobby and part of a
"different and more advanced world", face themselves and get their hands
dirty with topics like literacy and distribution.

Derrick de Kerckhove:...and must persuade the mainstream media in  
Italy to
join in.

Marco Mancuso: You are an affirmed journalist of a large editorial  
group,
but at the same time you are also one of the most renowned bloggers on  
the
Italian Network. On more than one occasion you did not hesitate to  
take an
activist stand and you presented your blog Piovono Rane (It's Raining  
Frogs)
to the defence of cases like, as I can recall, the case of the raid on  
the
Community Centre Cox18 and the Calusca Archive. How do you conciliate  
your
role as a journalist for the editorial group "L'Espresso" with your  
role as
a blogger online: in other words, how much does the Net (as a mass  
medium
considered to be of little impact compared to newspapers and TV) still  
allow
for a margin of free activist action to professional journalists like
yourself, and how much will it increasingly become a balance between the
will of the individual professional and the ontology of the Press. And  
how
big is the risk of the proliferation of blogs that express precise  
opinions
and assume certain positions with the purpose of collecting users (and
therefore readers, or potential electors) from social areas that are  
more
extreme (be they left or right wing)?

Alessandro Gilioli: Personally I am lucky to work for a newspaper that  
has a
long tradition of civil battles and so I have the possibility to "use"  
blogs
quite freely for that which you cal "activism". Blogs allow for a  
margin of
autonomy and independence that - if managed with responsibility and
awareness - is much greater than that of a printed newspaper (which is  
still
a collective product). The balance between personal activism and the
position of the newspaper has many variables though and must be measured
with intelligence every day. It's obvious that in my blog - which is a  
part
of the website of the "Espresso"  - I have greater responsibility and
constraints compared to another hypothetical personal blog outside the
website of the newspaper. But it's worth it, because being a part of the
"Espresso" you also have an audience and greater feedback, which makes  
it
easier to defend those cases that you speak of, and eventually get to
activism. In other words, it means you can move better - for the results
that you want to obtain - in the "balance" between positions of the
newspaper and personal freedom.
On the other hand, here luckily the funny but golden rule that the BBC  
gave
as a unique policy to its journalists-bloggers: do as you like, but  
use your
common sense and your head. Which isn't bad as a margin for freedom.  
As for
the proliferation of blogs that take extreme positions or super  
assertive
"to the sole purpose of attracting users", I don't see anything wrong  
with
that or anything "risky": everyone must have the right to do the blog  
he or
she chooses, with the purpose that they want, and it will be the users  
- the
readers - who will give them credibility and authority.

Derrick de Kerckhove: A healthy relationship between the press and the
networks is essential for the well-being and the openness of society.  
Every
government experiences the temptation to control the media, every  
newspaper
at times experiences nervousness at publishing risky reports. The  
condition
of freedom, not only of people´s expression but also of their movement  
rests
largely on an open relationship between government, mainstream media  
and the
network. The network is not a new underground, it is the ground itself.
People have to be able to express their opinions and desires and see  
them
reflected in the media when they pertain to social well-being as in  
the case
of Iran.
On the other hand, the presence of mainstream journalists who are also
credible in the world of networks is part of the public image of great
editorial groups. There is, in Canada, the principle of  "arms length"
between the government and the media, that is, they are inevitably  
closely
related but manage somehow to maintain their independence mutually. A
journalist with a blog establishes the liaison between the world of
individual opinion and information to the world of media consensus. It
requires, of course someone capable to maintain a quality blog. An "arms
length" agreement" between government and the press on the matter of
reporting is thus necessary. By which I mean, that a respected newspaper
should never be refrained from reporting on public opinion for fear  
that the
government will retire its support. And a respected journalist like
Alessandro Gilioli should never have to fear the consequences on his  
honest
reporting in blogs as well as on the paper. Internally the editorial  
board
may not always be ready to take risks. But, in many newspapers of
international reputation such as le Monde in France, The New York  
Times in
the US, and La Repubblica in Italy there is enough professional  
honesty and
standards to tolerate a critical attitude within their midst. The
association creates a greater sense of trust among the papers´ readers.
Thus, there ought to be a mutual support between network, citizen
journalists and the mainstream media. Long before blogs were invented,  
the
collaboration has begun dozens of years ago, with England´s Daily  
Telegraphy
taking the lead in the early nineties, by seeking the opinions of  
people on
line and offering special services. Media began to act as accelerators  
of
pertinent citizen news. Artists -artisvist- groups in Italy, such  
Taziana
Bazichelli´s AHA or Alessandro Ludovico´s NEURAL have shown the way. The
idea has always been to help the main media, not to ut the then down.  
The
consequence should be that the main media recognize the value added  
service
provided by responsible reflexive hacktivism, and citizien, eyewitness
journalism. If we want to still talk about democracy in the next few
critical years, networks and media must work together to advise and  
dissuade
governments from silly or dangerous impulses to block free expression  
of the
public. Governments, after all, are not a private profit-oriented
businesses, they belong to the people who vote for them and the  
electorate
should be able to expect the services it has paid for.

Marco Mancuso: I'll ask you a question that I asked the authors of the
graphic novel Persepolis 2.0 last month, an artistic project of re- 
editing
of the graphic novel Persepolis that traces an artistic and narrative
parallel between the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the protest  
movements of
2009. My thought, and that of the authors, is that from the moment  
that the
protest of young people in Iran of the past few weeks was repressed by
violence, and causes the simultaneous closure of Networks and a hunt for
bloggers and all those from Iran who were "guilty" of having  
communicated
with the rest of the world by reporting the violence that was taking  
place,
the great mass media (but also online) did not cover or emphasize the
situation, abandoning the Iranian population and leaving it to its  
destiny.
In other words, it's evermore evident that the Net (as the mass medium  
that
it now is) has an enormous potential in keeping the attention on certain
political situations in the world and consequently has a growing
responsibility (be it ethical or professional) concerning its  
potential and
its shortcomings. When the Net, the countercultures on the Internet, the
initiatives that are concerned with freedom of expression online,  
websites
like Reppublica or L'Espresso, blogs, do not use their potential (or  
only do
so for short periods of time and only connected to the "hottest" news
bulletins), you ask yourself how much are we who work on the  
distribution of
news and culture on the Net responsible of some shortcomings or  
hypocrisies.
What do you think? Don't you think that at times the Net falls into
professional dynamics that are too similar to those of common mass  
media,
therefore slowly losing part of its revolutionary force and its  
propulsive
dynamics, as naive as they may be?

Alessandro Gilioli: Perfection is no one's and nobody's, not even the  
Net's.
But on the Net there are "long lines" and retrievals, and niche websites
that don't "let go" of a topic such as Burma or Iran just because  
current
affairs has. So things are better than they were 20 years ago, when  
there
were just Print newspapers and so consult archives you had to go to the
public library, or if you wanted to know what was happening in a far-off
country that was ignored by the newspapers you had to walk around  
various
associations in a City. For example, for personal reasons I follow the  
Burma
situation closely, but I cannot do a daily post of Burma because if  
not I
will have lost dozens of readers: which would not be useful for the
distribution of other important news. At the same time, when I see  
something
new or strong about Burma then I gladly put it in there. Once again,  
for a
journalistic-generalist website or blog it's a question of balance and  
good
sense. Another issue for blogs and niche websites, naturally, is that  
are
like online data banks that are perpetually updatable and consultable.  
In
other words, I wouldn't get too paranoid about "Journalist logic" of  
online
activism as a negative dynamic: the important thing is that there's a
plurality that is as free as possible and contains as many voices and
topics, battles and elaborations as possible.

Derrick de Kerckhove: I don't think so, because I think the problem lies
elsewhere and is much more dangerous, as that quoted of the repression  
of
blogs in Iran. The accessibility of anybody on the Net creates  
conditions
for absolute control. There will be a great temptation in many  
countries,
like Italy (and perhaps even the United States in the next Republican
  "reign") to experiment a kind of "electronic fascism".

Marco Mancuso: I would like to conclude this interview by trying to  
reflect
on a point that I think is important: the very existence of this  
interview!
Aside from the obvious and right dynamics of the younger professional  
who
interviews the expert, of the counterculture website like Digicult  
that is
interested in the activities of a journalist of an important national
Newspaper and a great editorial group, I ask myself whether this  
interview
signals a certain weakness in the project The Right to Net. In other  
words,
don't you think that there's the risk that these initiatives are  
perceived
as vertical initiatives, directed by an intellectual elite that despite
everything doesn't speak the same language as the new classes of
professionals and intellectuals that have been created in Italy in the  
past
decade, that despite everything remain too far away from the common  
people,
from young people who do politics on the Net, from the activist
countercultures that animate it? I'm sure that, and luckily may I add,  
the
initiative was a success and I've seen that many people participated  
in the
platform The Right to Net, but at the same time, by reading a few  
posts here
and there, I'm still struck by certain messages like: "The initiative  
has
seen participants and bloggers from every political area (but also
non-political areas) and representatives from various parties and
associations. Some of the participants: Ignazio Marino, Vincenzo Vita,  
Mario
Adinolfi and Francesco Verducci (Pd - Democratic Party); Antonio Di  
Pietro
(Idv): Pietro Folena (Party of the European Left); "Amici di Beppe  
Grillo"
(Friends of Beppe Grillo) in Rome, Calabria and Taranto; Articolo 21;
Sinistra e Libertà (Left and Freedom); Per il Bene Comune (For the  
Common
Good); Partito Liberale Italiano (PLI). On an individual level other  
people
have participated such as Giuseppe Civati, Sergio Ferrentino, Massimo
Mantellini, Alessandro Robecchi, Claudio Sabelli Fioretti, Ivan  
Scalfarotto,
Luca Sofri, Marco Travaglio and Vittorio Zambardino. Some  
parliamentarians
from the ruling party (like Antonio Palmieri and Bruno Murgia), even  
if they
won't be in the piazza, have expressed their opposition to the "Net- 
Gagging"
law in the Alfano decree.... in other words, the introduction into "new"
environments is not underlined in traditional politics and in the  
dominant
intellectual society, as much as the classes and groups and people who  
think
they can represent a "guide" but that perhaps many people on the Net or
people who do politics through new technologies, are no longer  
perceived as
real "alternatives" from a political point of view. What do you think  
about
this?

Alessandro Gilioli: I don't want to repeat myself, but it's still a  
question
of balance. If the participation in a battle of people who are  
stimulated
and considered authoritative for different reasons is useful for the  
result
of the battle itself, this should be communicated and valued. If I had
written: "My grocer Gino participated too, as well as my doorman  
Guido, my
cleaner Luz and the neighbourhood officer Erminio", I would have been  
more
horizontal and more democratic, but a little silly too. The important  
thing
is that when the initiative takes place, everyone mixes up the same way,
without verticality or leadership (for this reason in Piazza Navona I
avoided getting up on a stage and talking, leaving the speeches up to a
judicial expert such as Scorza and a Network expert such as De  
Kerckhove).
If hundreds of "unknown" blogs hadn't participated in the strike, it  
would
have been a failure. But in the moment of preparation the  
participation of
"authoritative" characters was useful so as to involve the "unknown"  
blogs.
In other words, we try to avoid ideologies and to be pragmatic: it's  
right
that there are no leaderships and personal interests, but it's also  
right
that authoritative characters "spend their time" if this can be useful  
to
the positive outcome of the initiative. It is strenuous to find the  
right
balance between the two each and every time.

Derrick de Kerckhove: I don't know Italian politics well enough to be  
able
to answer this question, but I will say that whatever the quantity -  
be it
homeopathic - of the representation of the critique of power, the  
effect is
believable, if it does not touch the masses. This means that there are
people circulating on the net that are capable of having a believable  
and
authoritative position, in the sense that Social Networks are a  
pertinent
world of connections: person to person, group to group, they become a
fact... like a Press Release.... It has happened in other historical
situations. Think of the voice of a person who lives outside his or her
country and conditions an ever-growing network of people in the rest  
of the
world. It's an interesting thing; it means that it's perfectly  
possible to
find a reference on the Internet that comes at light speed to the right
person.  I think that this is the great power of the Internet, from a  
small
dosage of information that becomes important, that circulates at light  
speed
and allows people to "do things". As Mc Luhan says: "light speed is the
maximum function of speed not the quantity of information, it's the  
speed of
access that makes the mass, it's a mass of real time, a mass that is  
built
up and broken down. Information works that way, it's a different way  
with
respect to traditional strategies of the so-called mass media".
Having said that, I continue to sustain that in order to make a positive
action of persuasion on the government, a union of all the official  
Press is
preferable, if they accept to take a stand on this topic... and I  
think that
the Union of the Press would be essential in the future of political
decisions. This in my belief and must be the effect of other  
initiatives of
"The Right to Net". The stimuli and pressure come from the Internet,  
from
Social Networks, from blogs, and are released into reality, into the  
media,
the mainstream, because the Internet is underground.


http://dirittoallarete.ning.com/
http://gilioli.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/
http://www.cittadinolex.kataweb.it/article_view.jsp?idArt=88618&idCat=120


#  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://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org