[NetBehaviour] Solutionism Re: An interview with Geert Lovink
rpacker at zakros.com
Sat Oct 3 15:38:58 CEST 2015
Aharon, these are great ideas! What I gather in essence is that there are ways to devise a system that gives options, multiple channels that are interconnected so that everyone can use their medium of choice. That’s what I was implying in a previous post but you articulated it more directly and clearly in your various communications scenarios.
On 10/3/15, 6:05 AM, "aharon" <netbehaviour-bounces at netbehaviour.org on behalf of aha at aharonic.net> wrote:
>Very interesting quick mapping of possibilities, Rob + Patrick - Cheers!
>Had some failed attempts linked with mailinglist and web oriented self
>* Bridge between a mailinglist where each post becomes a blog-post that is
>in turn being published on a twitter-like platform (old identica, can be
>done nowadays with gnu-social).
>Problem was plurality of possible triggers - via email, blog, identica -
>made it fun but hard for people to follow content.
>* Bridge between drupal and mailinglist. That was done via mailinglist and
>drupal signup page. So when people registered in either, they were
>registering in both.
>The idea was that in this case, people could post to either list and/or a
>drupal forum. These were interchangeable. So posts, replies etc were
>published on both and people could use which ever tool.
>That didn't catch up much for a few bugs and more importantly, people seem
>a bit confused by the multiple platforms. Hard to tell whether a bugless
>system would have caught up.
>* A meta messaging system "MEM" where users could direct messages between
>tools. e.g. Say Blooby fancied email and sent stuff, Zlooby could receive
>the message as a txt or a blog post, or whatever they fancied at that
>People could alter message retrieval as they fancied.
>People could send stuff as they fancied.
>The system itself MEM was centralised, but people's tools were as they
>might want. All that needed was api registration.
>(For me the interesting bit was that each activity was to create a string
>that could be expressed in audio and lighting intensity/colour
>instructions. Hence the networking was evolving visceral materials..)
>Anyhow, MEM's funding went boom..
>* A different approach entirely is that which we took in the recent
>A network for a very specific community, developed with the community
>members in bucfp.org ) The development through workshops that teased out
>requirementts, offered possible solutions and through usage feedback, we
>opted for temporary solutions to begin with. The idea is that this will
>assist in initial usage and as the system is used more, we could alter it
>later. (perhaps even via more similar workshops if needed..)
>Not sure this is applicable here, because there is much broader
>However it might be an idea to use the need for a change as an opening to
>try various solutions live with the people involved? A sort of
>Indeed, I wonder how a change in the system might actually occur? A
>Apologies for too many questions possibly.. Hopefully some are apt.
>Probably the gist of this is that it seems altering the communication
>system and platforms can be a tricky process and it would be a shame to
>lose people as a result.
>Cheers and a fab weekend!
>Any thoughts re a diaspora node..?
>On Sat, October 3, 2015 07:09, Patrick Lichty wrote:
>> I think that as usual, you¹re brilliant. The metric tracking idea seems
>> OK, maybe, but might be a bit of a red herring.
>> I think that Furtherfield is at a pivotal moment similar to the
>> institutionalization moment of Rhizome, where it asked; ³How can we have
>> maximum imapact/reach, etc?²
>> I know I¹m conflating a LOT of terms here, but I think my core argument
>> is sound. I realize that the impetus here is to bring FF goodness to
>> larger groups and spread light in the jungle of other art communities.
>> a few things to consider.
>> So, what happened? In my conversation with the execs there over time,
>> There was an admission that the lists were forumized to facilitate
>> institutional discourse, and Michael Connor even admitted to not focusing
>> on community, and with the cutbacks, I¹ll be curious to see what Zach
>> Secondly, regarding bridge-building - this relates to serving inter
>> community needs. An extreme example is my conversation with Cao Fei during
>> the building of RMB City in Second Life. She had no idea of the
>> necessity for community engagement before our conversation; she just
>> assumed that people would know who she was and flock to the servers. What
>> she didn¹t realize was that Sl and the Artworld are totally different
>> Furherfield is in a much better position in that the ³new media² (sic)
>> community, as shown in my (hopefully) upcoming late review of ISEA that the
>> Contemporary and the Tech Media artworlds are less divergent than
>> ever, probably (urrr) thanks to the postinternets. ISEA 2015 showed that
>> the art historical traditions are concurrent at this time, and piercing
>> the membrane might be relatively easy.
>> Back to Rhizome.
>> I think that Rhizome¹s path was a Faustian bargain. Its decentering from
>> the community model, IMO, is coming to roost as the institutions are
>> giving it less resources (and isn¹t it even outside of the NuMu now?),
>> and there isn¹t a community except for the young blue-chips to rely on.
>> First, withFF¹s punk roots, I doubt that many of the pitfalls that beset
>> will hit FF. And there is a valid question - how does FF continue to
>> evolve without neglecting its core values? Good question.
>> And I¹ll be selfish in that although I am not terribly active, the list
>> is my main umbilical to the community at this time, and I want it to stay a
>> list. I¹mnot against outreaches, don¹t think that the list should just be
>> a haven for hoary New Media artists, but on the other hand, I feel that
>> the list has a good community that is pretty healthy. I also think there
>> are good models like Nettime that are excellent cases to defend the
>> form, and
>> For Powers¹ Sake, The Well???
>> There¹s is a case for the power of Ur-Forums and their continued power.
>> My buds Lebkowsky and Sterling rock the cybersphere every year from a
>> anciently formatted mail thread there every year through The State of the
>> World every year.
>> I think FF has a precious resource in its list, and I¹m not in favor of
>> much more than incremental change. The axiom of that which evolves dies
>> doesn¹t necessarily fit here, as it¹s a matter of community investiture
>> rather than logistics. Looking at the list institutionally rather than
>> socially is a salient debate to have, and I don¹t want to lose the sense
>> of community I have here. This is one of the last informal venues I have
>> to just shoot the shit, as it were, and I think it¹s one of the few
>> where you can in this format.
>> My .02 AED...
>> On 10/3/15, 9:01 AM, "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/10/15 04:03 AM, ruth catlow wrote:
>>>> Furtherfield HQ (first think Google and then try to imagine the
>>> An open-ended and non-enclosed structure with no basketball courts or
>>> free candy vending machines?
>>>> Two issues
>>>> 1) the cost and time associated with strategising, consulting,
>>>> designing, planning and remunerating all involved, for their efforts
>>>> while: future-proofing community infrastructure, caring for the
>>>> archive/database. We have had some really very good and generous
>>>> support from a number of people to help us understand what the process
>>>> might be, but the work still needs doing...and all risks mitigated!
>>>> 2) connected to the above - maintaining the connections we all have,
>>>> while inviting in new and diverse (in age, background, device-loyalty,
>>>> ethnicity) people.
>>> There are a few approaches, with different affordances and costs
>>> (economic and political).
>>> 1. Yay Walled Gardens!
>>> Use Medium for publishing articles, hosted Discourse for mail/boards,
>>> and Slack for co-ordination/chat.
>>> Cost: 100USD/month plus your soul.
>>> Demographic: Current.
>>> 2. All Zuck All The Time
>>> Use Facebook Notes for publishing articles, Facebook pages for
>>> discussion, and Facebook messaging for co-ordination/chat.
>>> Cost: Zero, plus the souls of all humanity.
>>> Demographic: Previous.
>>> 3. Current Free Software
>>> Use Jekyll for publishing (mediated via GitLabs or at a pinch GitHub)
>>> [TODO: comment system], self-hosted Discourse or Groupserver for
>>> mail/boards, and an existing GNU social install or irc for co-ord/chat.
>>> Cost: As much as hosting costs.
>>> Demographic: current.
>>> 4. Hosted Free Software
>>> Use Wordpress for publishing, see if lurk.org will host Netbehaviour on
>>> their Groupserver install, and use an existing GNU social install or
>>> irc for co-ord/chat.
>>> Cost: As much as the services cost, look for donations.
>>> Demographic: Almost current.
>>> For any self-hosted or donated services, stick them behind Cloudflare.
>>> Good for DDOS and ssl, bad for centralization.
>>> Choice of platform is to a degree choice of audience, cultural context
>>> and politics. Not in a technologically deterministic sense but in the
>>> sense that different book publishers or record labels are. Change the
>>> system, exploit the system, or buck the system?
>>> - Rob.
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour