<nettime> Re: spooky silence

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

snafu@kyuzz.org (Sun 12/19/99 at 06:40 PM +0100):

> i find this silence on what happened 
> two days ago really spooky, at the limit
> of the soviet censorship...
> everybody knows that the thing, the server
> that hosts this list has been shut down between
> 2am and 3pm of friday 17th. 

judging by some of the shrill messages i've seen, i wouldn't 
assume that everyone is clear on the facts. here they are as
well as i know them:

(1) Etoys complained to The Thing's upstream provider, about
    the ECD webpage at Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:49:36 -0800 (PST)
    [ = Fri, 17 Dec 01:49:36 -0500 (EST), in TT's timezone]. 
    if indeed Verio shut down TT at ~2am, they didn't waste 
    much time. but we'll find out, i think. ;)

(2) Verio's subsidiary that handles TT, Spacelab, blocked ac-
    cess to the *host* www.thing.net, *not* to the thing.net
    domain as such. Spacelab claims to have tried to contact
    TT by phone before doing so but there appears to be good
    reason to doubt this; as far as i know, they did not try
    to do so by email. as a result www.thing.net was blocked
    without warning.

(3) when TT contacted Verio the next morning, Verio made var-
    ious verbal demands relating to rdom's user acount.

(4) some time later TT complied with a minimal subset of the
    demands Verio had made, and Verio unblocked TT.

there is more, of course, but people more directly involved
should be the ones to talk about the other facts.

> everybody knows that this happened because 
> high bandwith provider Verio, which supplies
> Thing.net's "backbone" connection,
> has been contacted from etoys corporation, 
> because of the virtual sit-in launched
> by the thing and fakeshop in support 
> to etoy's fight for the domain.
 
all true.

> everybody knows that the thing has been
> resumed only because hacktivist Ricardo
> Dominguez agreed to remove his domain
> /~rdom from the thing, including the 
> home page of the electronic disturbance
> theater.
 
'/~rdom' is a user directory, not a 'domain.' i don't think
anyone is very clear on whether TT contacted ricardo before
shutting down the site; afaic, TT had no choice whatsoever--
/~rdom was inaccessible *anyway*, as were many other sites,
and TT's business was seriously at risk. moreover, NSI's de-
cision to put the etoy.com *domain* on hold (which was *not*
stipulated in the california court's preliminary injunction)
suggests that Etoys may have applied pressure on NSI; had it
done so with regard to TT, the result could have been that
*all* TT hosts--the entire domain--might have been blocked.

> this domain is still shut down. massive
> actions of  protest are being organised all
> around the world. but this list continue
> to speaks about barbie dolls and other very
> "high profile issues".

in other words, the entire list hasn't capitulated to panic
politics. that's good. there are people on this list who've
been working very diligently to deal with these issues else-
where; the fact that you haven't seen much talk on the list
doesn't mean that no one cares or no one is doing anything.

> moreover, according to the NYT report, 
> an etoy's spokesman "denied that his group was 
> responsible for the sit-in" which would be
> amazing, since etoy is calling for protest,
> solidarity and various actions 
> since the beginning of this fight.

i think it's best to let etoy focus on their battles rather
than kvetching in public about whether they like ECD/RTMark
counteractions. the preliminary injunction that caused them
to shut down web service under etoy.com was a *preliminary*
injunction: the court case isn't finished and what they say
or do publicly could itself become a decisive issue--and it
shouldn't, because Etoys's case is based on an intellectual
property claim. one can support them passively, by not pres-
sing certain issues, just as one can support them in active
ways.

> if anyone of etoy is on the list i'd like
> to have an explanation about this statement.
> 
> if anyone has something to hide, it would be
> better that s/h/it speaks immediately, since what
> happened on friday is one of the most illegal
> and arrogant acts that occurred since the born
> of the internet. an act that definitely shows
> the real face of this "democratic" media, and
> of the powerful who rule it.

i think it was just Machtpolitik of a very boring and predic-
table kind. but the issue is far from resolved: as the saying
goes, 'it ain't over till the fat lady sings.'

> we can not agree with the EDT tactics, but 
> what happened on friday is on another level,
> is really on another level. if you don't
> understand this, we have already lost.

very much agreed. ever since EDT began its activities, critics
--myself included--have warned that exactly this kind of thing
would happen. not surpisingly, when the larger power structure
in which EDT has been functioning bares its teeth, the mystify-
ing metaphors like 'sit-in' completely fall apart. and, as has 
become a tiresome pattern on nettime and other such lists, vir-
tual activists use the list to promote their earth-shattering 
activities but never provide any follow-up reports. so, if you
want to criticize the list for failing to discuss what happen-
ed, please keep that longer silence in mind--it's an important 
part of the context.

cheers,
t

#  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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net