[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Hackers: the political heroes of cyberspace + URL target for NeTstrike

["ricardo dominguez" <rdom@thing.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrice Riemens" <patrice@xs4all.nl>
To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: <nettime> Hackers: the political heroes of cyberspace + URL
target for NeTstrike


> Quoting ricardo dominguez <rdom@thing.net>:
>
> >
>  > > So all in all, we are faced with a new threat, much worse than
>  > > net.art, Hacktivism becoming the latest media item of affection and
>  > > people like THEM becoming known as leading protagonists in this
>  > > oh so very exciting field where technology, art and politics merge...
>  >
>  > Damn!! Now Hacktivism is dead.
>  >
>  > r
>  >
>  > p.s. i know...it always/already was...
>  > p.p.s. i know...it was only bad idea gone wrong
>  > p.p.p.s i know...it should never have been attempted
>  > p.p.p.p.s i know...never mix technology, art and politics
>  > p.p.p.p.p.s i know...i forgot something else that is very important...
>
>
>  Yes Ricardo, you did forget the most important thing: the personality
cult
>  that you created around the icon Ricardo Dominguez (and accessorily
Stefan
>  Wray), and how you made the whole concept of hacktivism, which,
>  unsurprisingly, you guys did *not* invent, and which, in itself, was a
>  good meme, into a media dud to be from the very moment you laid your
hands
>  on it.
>

Hola patrice and Mister Diiiino!


I think, patrice and Mister Diiiino, that you give me "icon" Ricardo
Dominguez
and "icon" Stefan Wray (let us not forget super "icons" Carmin Karasic and
Brett Stalbaum)
far too much power. The power that I find happening under the signs of
hacktivism - is that
of the Cult of the SWARM -- and not that of any one single individual or
group. The event
horizon of  "hacktivism" is that it has become a generalized phenomenon
whose historical
outcome is still ahead of us. It is still an empty term that can grow in
multiple directions - sans
media or qua media.

The issue of our electronic actions connecting our data bodies with our real
bodies, which were
then sutured into the "icon" EDT - is that we chose to be transparent. This
semantic gesture
created syntactical disturbance among those who wanted the Cult of Anonymous
and Tech_efficiency
to rein on the networks. EDT felt that transparency would also allow us to
speak to a great many more individuals and groups than a code of secrecy
would have permitted. Transparency allowed a
minor degree of control over the media spin that was needed for the of
symbolic efficacy to occur.
Lo-fi hacktivism is also about side_loading as much information about the
context for the
action as possible. I would say that a good 78% of the media articles that
have appeared
world wide about EDT and FloodNet - always mentioned the Zapatistas and the
conditions
in Chiapas, Mexico as the basic reasons behind these actions. Those who have
very little
must use what gestures they have to have their voices heard under thick wall
of noise which
neo-liberalism is constructing. Lo-fi hacktivism as it has emerged via EDT
is indeed about
injecting information into the media about an issue that is important enough
to call attention to it.

EDT is not against those who have the knowledge to build autonomous
infrastructures and
create filters that cut down the noise, or those who create via critique -
we see them as part
and parcel of the history of hacktivism, as well as its future. We have
never said that hackers
should desist from doing what moves them. But, we do not feel that "hacking"
, as defined by
you both, to be the only proper form of hacktivism that should be allowed to
exist on the networks.

The hacktivist disturbance will continue.

ciao,
"icon" ricardo dominguez

p.s. dont forget about the NetStrike on March 15th, 2001
p.p.s. yes EDT did not invent "hacktivism" - Al Gore did!

<<<>>>
NETSTRIKE AGAINST TRADING
ON LINE