Re: <nettime> Facebook

[Geoffrey Goodell <goodell@oxonia.net>]

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, voyd@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 <sondheim@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
> > 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: nettime@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: nettime@kein.org
> > #?@nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
> >
> >
> >
> 
> web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552
> current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wo.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: 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: