|eon on Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:38:19 +0200 (MET DST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|<nettime.free> Matthew Fuller and Peter van der Pouw Kraan Comment|
Hello from Nettime.Free. There have been some requests to unsubscribe from some of the people who have received messages from this list and did not wish to do so. If you are one of them and would still like to stop your subscription, please send the message: unsubscribe nettime.free to <firstname.lastname@example.org> To those who wish to remain and support an open, self-regulated list, this list is what YOU make of it. If you don't want it to become a "spam camp" then please be considerate of what you post. The recommendation is, post openly, post thoughtfully, post sparingly...and take your flames, pouts, and personal conflicts offline, or at least, offlist. This is YOUR list to serve YOU! Enjoy! .............................................................................SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.1.2); Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:18:08 -0400 Received: from [22.214.171.124] (helo=[126.96.36.199]) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zT76e-0006tD-00 for email@example.com; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:15:29 +0000 X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org (Unverified) Message-Id: <email@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:04:15 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Matthew Fuller <email@example.com> Subject: a proposal What concerns me here is to open-up a situation where the 'community' which nettime 'free' ostensibly intends to make its intervention on behalf of, isn't actually done a disservice by the instigation of this list. There is an opportunity now to meet the obvious demand (of whatever size) for a zero or low filtration channel that works in some kind of relationship with nettime-l. One political banner that has been raised over the start of this mailing list is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is as clearly a con in this case as elsewhere. It is a rhetorical manoeuvre that worked well in the context of the Eighteenth Century in defining a potential political subject against monarchy and colonialism. It is not nuanced enough to deal with this context. As a historical refrain Freedom of Speech is a metaphor for interfacing a political/ technical reality that it largely misses. That is why the demands for a completely unfiltered mailing list ring entirely true when taken solely on their own ideological terms but founder into absolutism or bad design when attempts to realise them are made. People constructing mailing lists should look closely at what they are doing: creating systems of enunciation. This is what we need to make happen with regard to this matter - a close attention to the implicit politics of the technology. We need to look at what collaborative filtering, networks, etc. actually mean and can be made to do. In the context of a list or lists focused on critical thinking about networks, coupled with the technical abilities of people to go beyond rhetoric into actual construction, one would hope that this might be done with the careful attention it deserves. This is not a call for a technocratic solution. The tools to deal with this situation already exist and can be developed in the texts, people and machines on the list. At the moment it seems unclear whether the intention behind nettime.free is to maintain any relationship with nettime-l, or any of the other variations on the list. If not, it might well be useful to make it clear. Obviously a first step towards this would be to immediately stop the compulsory subscription of nettime-l subscribers to the new list. If the intention for the launch of this new list is in fact to provide a channel for all the material which is filtered from nettime-l, and not for instance to start a new list with other foci of attention, or to merely duplicate what nettime-l already does, then arrangements need to be made to make sure that happens in a thorough and open manner. As one of the people involved in moderation of the nettime-l list, but not here or anywhere else speaking on behalf of the group, I am quite happy to state that the filtering is minimal and careful. However, since the demands have been made to remove filtering from the list and someone is clearly prepared to provide server-space for this to be done there is an obvious opportunity for this demand to be met. Perhaps what is needed first is for people wanting a strictly unfiltered mailing list for critical writing on the net and related areas to decide what they actually want, and what relationship, if any, it should have to the current nettime. If no relationship is wanted, then it might well be useful to change the name of this list from nettime.free and to make this clear. There is of course the possibility that the initiation of this list is purely designed as a temporary intervention without any commitment to continued work on the list. This would be a waste of everyone's time. PROPOSAL Working on the assumption that there is not just a desire but an actual commitment to continue a connection between nettime-l and nettime.free, what I suggest is that it is possible to find a way for nettime.free to become the unfiltered channel to nettime-l that has been discussed but never implemented, rather than split off into a separate list. If it is done well, this is a good opportunity to distribute the work and infrastructure involved and to satisfy the demand for a list with none or little filtering as well as for a filtered list. If this is to be the case I guess the key question is how do we ensure that: - (whether destined for filtering or not) posts don't slip through the cracks - multiple postings are unnecessary - the 'free' list receives all the material that is filtered from 'nettime-l' Subsequently, it might of course be necessary to look at filtering levels for the unfiltered list. Bounce messages, requests for unsubscription, and spam from entirely irrelevant address harvesting senders, etc. etc. This could be a relatively simple process. 1. Texts destined for both lists would be in the first instance mailed to the nettime-l address. 2. Posts that are unfiltered from the nettime-l list would have their headers stripped and text formatted as usual and sent to this list. 3. Posts that would normally be filtered from nettime-l would, instead of being deleted, be forwarded to the nettime.free address. The headers of these posts could subsequently be stripped and the text formatted at whatever level is deemed useful by the moderators of the nettime.free list. It might in time be seen to be necessary to introduce some level of filtering in this context. This model still allows for people to post solely to nettime.free, allowing the possibility of 'self-filtering' from nettime-l. So long as there was clarity in the footer / FAQ etc. of both lists about the function of the two channels ensuring that this is not done by mistake this should not pose any problem. An alternative to this is to revert back to one mailing list and to open a distinct unfiltered channel if it is clear that there is an actual demand for, and commitment to, maintaining this channel. It is useful that dissatisfaction with the nettime list has been matched with the technical capacity to act. Now what is needed is for this act not merely to evaporate into a gesture, but to match itself again with thought, communication - and more construction. First though, allow people to unsubscribe. Matthew Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.1.2); Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:38:18 -0400 Received: from dc2-modem263.dial.xs4all.nl (dc2-modem263.dial.xs4all.nl [188.8.131.52]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA23625 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:35:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:35:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: email@example.com From: Peter van der Pouw Kraan <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [nettime.free] Welcome to Nettime.Free! At 19:55 10-10-98 -0400, you wrote: >Hello All, > >Welcome to NETTIME.FREE, the renewed, UNMODERATED AND OPEN >Revival of the Nettime Community! I follow this list a while out of curiosity, but also feel offended, because I never subscribed to it. I would have preferred to get one announcement only and then to have the free choice to subscribe or not. >Once again, there is an OPEN LIST for Nettime, free of >any unwanted censorship, Sounds somewhat surprising to me. You mean in this list there will only be the wanted censorship? Then again you have the problem what is tolerated and who will decide. There is no reason to expect that everybody will agree about everything. Different opinions about what is acceptable are inevitable on a mailinglist with many members, it's inherent to the mainlinglist as an open social system. Also without a moderator. It just depends on coincidental events when the discussion about this starts. And imo it's very easy to play jerk and provoke this discussion with some very unwanted mail. > hidden agendas, personal tastes, It's rather common that members of communities have their own agendas. And messages about net.art, media, etc without personal tastes just seem impossible to me. >anal-retentive book editors/librarians, respiratory diseases, >and other information-hostile elements that have corrupted >the intial mission of the nettime list as established by the >founders of Nettime in Venice, June, 1995. Are some personal conflicts fighted here over the back of nettime members who, like me, have no clue what this is about? >No more digestion/indigestion...just free flow of information! Please no. I find free flow of information as presented here a naive concept. As if you just would open a tap on Internet and the free flow of information streams out. Yes in the sink. The problem is that I only want relevant information. And I haven't got all the time of the world to sort it out. More theoretical: a community exists because of a meaningfull communication among the members and with an environment. This takes place in a limited amount of time. What selection takes place, what is filtered out, constitutes the character of a community. And there is a fysical limit on the amount of communication: time. Within this limit the relevant information has to be sent and received. Selection is a vital condition for a community not to die in information overload. No selection, no community. The point is not whether selection takes place or not, but how. The ideal situation is that selection takes place at the source: contributors voluntarily restrict themselves to the subject of mailinglists, newsgroups or debates i.r.l., are clever enough to understand what the subject is, and there is an agreement about what belongs to the subject. But ideal situations tend to be seldom. An open mailinglist is an extremely vulnarable proces of communication. So how to keep it working, how to select? Sometimes a have the feeling that the naivity of the sixties got a revival among Internet-enthousiasts and that the founding of nettime.free is one of the symptoms. Peter van der Pouw Kraan (email@example.com) # distributed via nettime.free : no commercial use without permission # <nettime.free> is an open mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: firstname.lastname@example.org and "info nettime.free" in the msg body # To subscribe: email@example.com with # "subscribe nettime.free" in the msg body # Speak freely or unsubscribe!