| Nat Gravenor via nettime-l on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:55:18 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> nettime-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5 |
Banning X is a last resort and might become necessary. But why on Earth are governments, cultural institutions, halfway serious media outlets etc. still sporting an X icon next to the f, the camera, the YouTube screen/play button etc. in their social media share sections? If there had been a major X-odus right after Musk bought and tainted the platform, it might have just disintegrated. Power of boycotts, anyone? <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 11. Okt. 2024, 22:31: > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.servus.at/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Harv Stanic Staalman) > 2. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Fr?d?ric Neyrat) > 3. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Cade Diehm) > 4. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Akshay Khobragade) > 5. Re: Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the campaign > (Keith Sanborn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:55:31 +0200 (GMT+02:00) > From: Harv Stanic Staalman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st > century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings > memories of the > //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > Geert should know better. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:48:37 -0500 > From: Fr?d?ric Neyrat <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > < > CABB5BS2fU9snShW_68Z_+GOxA_1YRxZJDD2J55LC6Nv8OODNZA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Thank you Geert, yes we need to ban what destroys our lives, our psyches (a > question of courage and politics), the internet is dead and we follow it > into its death - it's time to create an externet > > in solidarity, > > Fr?d?ric > __________________________________ > ________________ Website: Atopies <https://atoposophie.wordpress.com/> > _______ ALienstagram <https://www.instagram.com/alienocene/> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:34?AM Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st > > century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly > brings > > memories of the > > //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > > I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > > Geert should know better. > > -- > > # 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: https://www.nettime.org > > # contact: [email protected] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:11:15 +1000 > From: Cade Diehm <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi nettime, > > In the years to come, the digital rights community will need to answer > for the conflation of free speech of a democratic society with the > formats and operations of the private platforms for which we interact on. > > Indeed, the US-borne legal stance enshrined by Section 230 ? that the > platform is (within reason) not broadly responsible for the content of > what its users post ? is something that should be heeded by the wider > democratic world. But what continues to be missed is the interface as it > relates to speech: the editorialised algorithmic timeline, the scaffolds > that dictate and shape platform speech (be it short form video, 200 > characters, or pictures with filters), or what one must give up in order > to participate. > > Turns out, all of these properties are just as important in the context > of speech, and how they shape what is said, who gets to say it, and how > they say it. And yet, beyond meandering gestures towards > interoperability by the EU, or the endless protest by NGOs against > endless social-media accelerated genocides, we widely continue to equate > the platform with the speech. The two could not be further from each other. > > Put simply, the democratic enshrinement of free speech is the cloak that > has successfully kept these controllers of discourse firmly in the seats > of power. That has been the mantra, to attack the platform is to attack > speech itself, what a convenient reality for these now-juggernaughts! > > Forgive me, but in 2024 this kind of free speech discourse rings as > hollow as Musks' facile speech absolutism. A digitalised democracy must > evolve beyond the infantile technolibertariancore EFF understanding of > free speech, where the platform and its designed constraints and rules > are invisible to the demands of a free press. There is a very real > accelerationist attack underway that leverages this very flaw in the 30+ > years of digital discourse, driven by a flaw we have all perpetuated to > varying degrees. Killing a platform for being run by a Epstein-adjacent > hyper-criminal who once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered > to buy her a horse is not the same as kicking in the doors of citizens > who post on the platform owned by?Epstein-adjacent hyper-criminal who > once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered to buy her a > horse. Frankly I'm tired of the claims that these are one and the same. > > I am not an authoritarian, I don't give a fuck about the Nazis on X. > What I care about is that, after 40 years of fighting for internet > freedoms, the Nazis are now freely flowing into the timelines of > everyone you care about. To continue to parrot this 20th century idea of > free speech without considering the infrastructure actor is to be in > denial as this information warfare submerges us. It is exactly the > belief here, cloaking the corpo platform in the dream of the democratic > voice, that has kept us from the nuance needed to navigate these > pathetic implementations of mass media we are still just beginning to > grapple with. > > Thanks for reading. > > Cade > > ~ > > Founder, New Design Congress > https://newdesigncongress.org/en/join > > On 11.10.24 18:55, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l wrote: > > Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st > century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings > memories of the > > //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > > I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > > Geert should know better. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:00:49 +0530 > From: Akshay Khobragade <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I concur hard with Harv. Wouldn?t want to look at such a ban in retrospect > and regret taking an easy way out. > > ?What would Gandhi do?? ? As much as I understand of the Indian > independence struggles of the previous century, Gandhi?s focus on > nonviolence, when all the brits ever did was violently suppress and jail > whoever opposed, was to never validate the behavior of the other side. > Otherwise it entails a perpetual fight where the deciding factors become > strength in numbers, not strength in morals and ideas. > > Instead of the ban, rather focus on building the utopia that cares for > everyone. Even the other side. > > Fostering healthy communication, pulling the crowd into a better place, > instead of sloshing everyone around with bans, will be sustainable. > > Lets not feed them the hate they depend on. > > ? Akshay > > > > On 11 Oct 2024, at 14:25, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st > century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings > memories of the > > //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > > I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > > Geert should know better. > > -- > > # 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: https://www.nettime.org > > # contact: [email protected] > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:30:20 -0400 > From: Keith Sanborn <[email protected]> > To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> Sign the BAN X in EUROPE petition and join the > campaign > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Musk is a fascist who promotes damaging lies and amplifies them. X is a > vehicle for much damaging of the public sphere. I guess you must really > love them nazis! Trying to defend them by standards they wd never adhere > to. J D Vance made the same point about Trump?s damaging claims he won the > 2020 election. All in the name of ?free speech.? This is the moral > equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. And Musk is a repeat > offender. That is not free speech but something akin to linguistic > terrorism. > > > On Oct 11, 2024, at 9:12?AM, Cade Diehm via nettime-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > ?Hi nettime, > > > > In the years to come, the digital rights community will need to answer > for the conflation of free speech of a democratic society with the formats > and operations of the private platforms for which we interact on. > > > > Indeed, the US-borne legal stance enshrined by Section 230 ? that the > platform is (within reason) not broadly responsible for the content of what > its users post ? is something that should be heeded by the wider democratic > world. But what continues to be missed is the interface as it relates to > speech: the editorialised algorithmic timeline, the scaffolds that dictate > and shape platform speech (be it short form video, 200 characters, or > pictures with filters), or what one must give up in order to participate. > > > > Turns out, all of these properties are just as important in the context > of speech, and how they shape what is said, who gets to say it, and how > they say it. And yet, beyond meandering gestures towards interoperability > by the EU, or the endless protest by NGOs against endless social-media > accelerated genocides, we widely continue to equate the platform with the > speech. The two could not be further from each other. > > > > Put simply, the democratic enshrinement of free speech is the cloak that > has successfully kept these controllers of discourse firmly in the seats of > power. That has been the mantra, to attack the platform is to attack speech > itself, what a convenient reality for these now-juggernaughts! > > > > Forgive me, but in 2024 this kind of free speech discourse rings as > hollow as Musks' facile speech absolutism. A digitalised democracy must > evolve beyond the infantile technolibertariancore EFF understanding of free > speech, where the platform and its designed constraints and rules are > invisible to the demands of a free press. There is a very real > accelerationist attack underway that leverages this very flaw in the 30+ > years of digital discourse, driven by a flaw we have all perpetuated to > varying degrees. Killing a platform for being run by a Epstein-adjacent > hyper-criminal who once flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered to > buy her a horse is not the same as kicking in the doors of citizens who > post on the platform owned by Epstein-adjacent hyper-criminal who once > flashed a woman on an aeroplane and then offered to buy her a horse. > Frankly I'm tired of the claims that these are one and the same. > > > > I am not an authoritarian, I don't give a fuck about the Nazis on X. > What I care about is that, after 40 years of fighting for internet > freedoms, the Nazis are now freely flowing into the timelines of everyone > you care about. To continue to parrot this 20th century idea of free speech > without considering the infrastructure actor is to be in denial as this > information warfare submerges us. It is exactly the belief here, cloaking > the corpo platform in the dream of the democratic voice, that has kept us > from the nuance needed to navigate these pathetic implementations of mass > media we are still just beginning to grapple with. > > > > Thanks for reading. > > > > Cade > > > > ~ > > > > Founder, New Design Congress > > https://newdesigncongress.org/en/join > > > >> On 11.10.24 18:55, Harv Stanic Staalman via nettime-l wrote: > >> Oh, how democratic and advanced. Asking for a censorship in a 21st > century, after 40 years of fighting for internet freedoms certainly brings > memories of the > >> //Reichsministerium//// f?r Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda//. > >> I wonder which EU funding scheme sponsors this? > >> Geert should know better. > > -- > > # 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: https://www.nettime.org > > # contact: [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > -- > # 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: https://www.nettime.org > # contact: [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5 > **************************************** > -- # 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: https://www.nettime.org # contact: [email protected]