typing  =)


perm!t zom 1 2 vom!t  =)

tzo. plz 4ward d!sz 2 nettime censor `art` forum


kommun!kat!on below had originally been sent to the max forum
[which has now reinstated =cw4t7abs. due 2 :
4. humans arent meant to live like brutes]

the pit schults argument follows. it is flawed.

+ lo.tekk.pozer.matter  =)

 |abs|  - krvava gruda-plodna zemlja
punKtproTokol[4'7c     m9ndfukc.macht.fre! < hTTp://

Advancements in technology have meant that all manner of equipment is now
available for reappropriation by whoever has the time to learn how to use
redefine, misuse and rewire it          http://simsim.rug.ac.be/dbonanzah

(digital world manager
 dbonanzah! d_nouncer
 new time a_nouncer
 young tourist bus driver
 culturfaze d/zignor :)

[=cw4t7abs to max-l]


regardless of outcome
[=cw4t7abs is no longer personally concerned with.
as the amount of pain experienced by everyone has
taken precedence]

would like to state that am hopeful everyone has learned [oops]
to be more sensitive. compassionate. considerate. and tolerant
towards other life forms. =cw4t7abs has learned [oops] the above.

\\ or for the more "academically" inclined.

the introduction of parasites into an environment leads to higher fitness
of all organisms in said environment. the absence or removal of parasites
from an environment leads the organisms' fitness to become stuck at a local
[parasite defined as competing life form] [may also be applied to
the anti-censorship argument however it isn't presented here as such]

written in correct english for selfish reasons.
compute reason if so inclined but please do not
automatically assume it is the intended one.


[Pit Schultz to netime censor]

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:59:55 +0200
>From: Pit Schultz <pit@xxxxxx>
>To: nettime-l@xxxxxxx
>Subject: <nettime> a brief piece on nettime free
>From: Tilman Baumgaertel
>> Hi!
>> "Spiegel-Online" asked me to write a brief piece on nettime free. A few
>> questions:
>making a brief report about a complex situation is the task for a journalist.
>hope i can leave that to you to make a cut-up version ;)
>i think it wouldn't be very smart to write only about this 'event' without
>putting into a proper context. the atmosphere of 'electronic disturbance' is
>growing on several mailinglists at the moment, but it is yet not clear if it is
>just a temporary phase, and what it has to do with what happens outside of the
>net, particulary the situation at the stock markets and various conflicts
>around ethnic and religious faultlines. some are calling it a millenial
>another context is clearly the name.space project paul garrin started, and
>which went into a final crisis. the demand of paul garrin to send out promotion
>material about his own project is not new, and it was a flame war he was mainly
>involved in which led into moderation of the nettime mailinglist in autumn
>1997. the so called nettime-free is based on Paul Garrin's server.
>there were several trials to start up with unmoderated channels on nettime
>before. from a certain number of subscribers on, it is almost imminent that
>noise goes up, and quality goes down. any mailinglist will have to find its own
>specific model of ballancing the signal/noise ratio. it is a net-myth that
>mailinglists are just regulating themselves, it needs a proper moderation and
>list maintenance to build up a commited user basis and substantial flow of
>content. moderation here means the real work of inviting people, encouraging
>contributions, solving conflicts, editing and cleaning texts, and filtering so
>called spam messages.
>nettime exists now since 1995 and grew only very slowly to the current 850
>subscribers from about 20 countries sharing certain interests in a critical
>discourse around the internet.
>since the beginning of this mailinglist there were always artists participating
>in the discourse on a formal level experimenting with e-mail communication.
>since late summer, a new breed of self-promiting digital artists emerged
>flooding several mailinglists with cut-up replies of earlier messages. it
>started mainly on the infowar mailinglist at ars electronica. (ironically at
>almost the same moment clinton send the cruise missiles to so called terrorist
>camps around the world) the goal is both disrupting the discourse and gaining
>attention through this disturbance, leading the reader to the own homepages
>which contain some dada-data-art. interesting is the mix of a radical
>democratic critique, with a shameless advertisments of own CDs and artworks
>under the legitimation of art.
>the arguments usually claim a position against human identity vs. the machines
>but then again paradoxically recall the anonymous authorship and human identity
>of the heroic disturber. the provocation usually ends in repetive replies,
>calling the moderator fascists etc. so partly this leads to the situation we
>have now. many other mailinglists have to deal with this in a similar way
>(syndicate, infowar, xchange, rhizome).
>in an interesting way most of these provocateurs came from a experimental art
>list called 7-11, which was also called the 'ascii-terrorist' camp where a
>certain kind of info-dada rituals were exercised, an affirmation of spam was
>celebrated and some subscribers started to feed a certain hatred on discourse
>based lists. the actions are centered around a radical paradoxical
>individuality using cut-up techniques and noisy ascii-art. the messages seem to
>fight against the ideology of clean digital environments, and aims first at the
>neigbhoring mailinglists adressing moderation as a repressive control system to
>limit self expression. This strategy of gaining recognition in the end turns
>out to be another kind of advertisment of (the artists as) art products,
>symbolizing the sacred identity of the individual. in my own interpretation it
>is a not only a reactionary fight for identity, but an impulsive manoevre
>against the potentials of the worst kinds of political order which is inh!
>erent in the digital media, and a rather desperate mode of self-expression as a
>negative appropriation of the economy of attention.
>it would be logical as a radical art strategy that the yet anonymous artist
>soon will convert the attention they got with their interventions later on into
>a career in the art system. the lack of any particular political messages makes
>it easy to identify with the actions as a general revolt against oppression,
>within a simplified world model of masters and slaves, freeing the cultural
>codes against a society of control. the ironic effect is that it is not
>corporations or banks, nor political insitutions but the self organised
>cultural mailinglists having to deal with these phenomena themselves.
>in the beginning nettime covered a good part of these retro-avantgardistic
>postings, but after the messages got more and more similar the current
>moderator, Ted Byfield, decided to take the usual action in these cases. first
>filtering messages, then after the spamming continues, unsubscribing the
>'spammer'. as always some subscribers begin to sympathize and see it as an
>undemocratic action of censorship. while there are possibly no other media
>which are giving such possibilty for free speech, ironically it is the exessive
>testing of the limits what makes many usenet newsgroups already unreadable.
>bigger mailinglists are usually moderated but not as open as some people dream
>all this is particulary sad for nettime as it tries to cover issues of cultural
>resistance and the critique of the political economy of cyberspace but still
>propagates a working model of textual criticism and dialogue. so instead of
>taking real action, symbolic action is taken within the 'virtual neighborhood'
>in place of a power structure which is unreacheable and remains untouched. in
>its performative hate speak it is some kind of unarticulated vandalism and
>marks a possible breakdown of textual communication. (similar to what El Laden
>calls 'messages without words'. )
>> 1. Any idea whose behind it? Does it smell like Paul Garrin?
>sure. smells like spam spirit.  paul garrin is, in a very bad sitution since
>the decision made with network solution and the reorganisation of the top level
>domains getting postponed again to 2003. it is a sad moment for his project and
>the concept of 'tactical media' in general. he invested a lot of money in
>lawsuits against Network Solutions and the US Administration itself. maintaing
>the technical infrastructure needed for name.space and his employees is
>expensive too. yet his last possibilty is to sue Network Solutions who is
>actually having a monopoly on the admistration on the biggest top level domains
>and access to the root files (".") of the DNS system, to pay him back his
>investments. His aim was a non-regulated model of DNS where thousands of top
>level domains would be possible. Clearly he is fighting against the big guys
>here, and there is little chance he can win this Don Quichote fight. In this
>moment of extreme frustration nettime-free appears.
>It also maybe typical for these 'independent' structures, that in the moment of
>severe crisis of one of their nodes, these informal structures turn against
>themselves. Especially name.space which is run as a rather autocratic system
>without any development of open standards or discussion boards of it's
>technical structures. So you have a paradoxical fight for the public domain of
>quasi anarchistic structures which are not build as democratically legitimized
>institutions. it is an important marker in the history of 'independent media'
>which is model which still survives from the 80ies in some parts of the net.
>nettime has a different position here which is rather based on a economic model
>of 'free content' comparable to the open source movement of the linux
>community. this case raises questions which are discussed aready for a while,
>and are adressing a new architecture for mailinglist based discussions.
>functions like moderation, closed and open subscription and even the title
>'list-owner' are inbuilt features of a given software.
>Also for mailinglists counts that democratic legitimation is yet not
>implemented technically or on the level of corporate organisation nor the
>development of technical standards. the question who governs the net is
>extremely unclear, and the 'board' lately introduced by John Postel shows new
>forms of oligarchic power structure governing the key technologies of the
>internet. it is obvious that the demand for more democratic legitmation of
>larger technical structures is first appearing on the bottom, in smaller
>enviroments which are traditionally sensitive for these issues.
>> 2. How do you think they got the nettime-email-adresses? How many people are
>> on the list at this point?
>anyone could, it's a standard majordomo function.  in the moment you might
>publish this it will likely be switched off.  the nettime moderators discussed
>this a while ago and thought it would be better if subscibers would be able to
>know who else is on the list. (you can easily make a search for email adresses
>and find out more) funny thing is that the 'who command' is switched off on
>this 'free' list.
>it is a known spammer practise collecting e-mail adresses from several
>mailinglists or the usenet. the fact that 'political' activists are using such
>lists is not new, but gets quite problematic when the messages are not at all
>wanted by the receivers and there is no way to get removed from such lists.
>more strange is that until now i know noone who managed it to unsubscribe from
>it. according to all known nettiquette this is the best way to lose your
>reputation online. i hope we'll get over this in a way, but it marks a deep
>decline in the open mailinglist culture, after it many of neighboring lists
>will look different, install more security and control schemes.
>> 3. Any plans to do anything against it? do you feel this infringes your right
>> on the name "nettime"?
>there is no trademark, it was never an issue. there are several other nettime's
>(one in sweden, one in canada) on the net and the list never had problems with
>them, which shows the sphere of splendid naivity this list is existing in.
>there have been several attempts to make open discussion channels (nettime-d,
>alt.nettime, bbs.thing.net) generally most people on nettime support an open
>channel - if it would just work.  the major problem, regarding net-ethics, i
>can see here is hijacking the list forcing people into subscription. this is
>clearly an abusive action which puts 'freedom' in a fairly ideosyncratic
>context. i expect the most of the subscribers are getting upset about the fact
>that they can't unsubscribe from this list they're put onto without asking.
>it puts the model of 'free media' into a more questiable light. nettime is not
>a corporation, there is no official body, to have an official reaction. you
>might grab different opinions about the internal structure of nettime, and also
>different answers to your questions. without a small group of people doing the
>basic work of maintaining nettime, it wouldn't exist. the main force of nettime
>are it's people, the subscriber-authors who are sharing a certain culture of
>exchange, such a positive potential has its own life and logic. you cannot
>simply collect all the adresses and names to symbolically own or control the
>on the side of social knowledge all this buzz is not new at all, compared to
>the history of much older 'virtual communities' like the well, or the
>cypherpunks lists. the known social dynamics of online communities were one
>cause that nettime was more aiming at offline socialising then the simulation
>of some kind of hippie jakuzie. the desires projected onto the idea of digital
>socialty are often a waste of time, which is better invested in meeting some
>friends next door.
>> 4. What do you say about the concrete accusations voiced in the first
>> nettime free mail (censorship, nettime being about publication and
>> self-promotion?)
>i don't know, i didn't read it ;) i would also not call it a free mail. such
>accusations are not new, and not particular for online media. sure you can
>call it all these things, but then you should be very careful how you
>legitimate your own activities. so i think it sounds like hypocrisy and has not
>much to do with the real world. what nettime offers is a rather open enviroment
>for the exchange of high quality content about internet culture on a complete
>non-commercial basis. the quality of textes delivered through this channel as
>compared to other professionally organised online magazines, is obscenely high.
>Especially for a highly informed user base, it is much more useful then
>channels which are aimed at a more general public. at least some journalists
>are using this list as basic source for their articles.
>that certain people who are contributing a lot of appreciated material get a
>certain reputation out of this activity is the basis of its economy. we would
>be hopeless idealists to believe that the gift economy would not pay back in a
>way. you should know it yourself. there are certainly negative factors, the
>list is surely not set in stone as it functions, started by Geert Lovink and
>me, the moderation is now in a rotating mode, it means that the moderator is
>changing every half a year. the idea of a text not getting published on nettime
>is in 98% cases a fiction based on the fear of moderation. in fact, it would be
>good to give users the access to the moderators mailbox to see what kind of
>messages get filtered out. you can accuse nettime of promoting a political
>bias, or being too intellectual or critical in certain moments, but i think
>that is rather a strength than a weakness.
>viel spass

 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/