<nettime> Re: spooky silence [snafu, tbyfield]

["nettime's_digestive_system" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Re: spooky silence
         snafu <snafu@kyuzz.org>
         t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:23:31 +0100
From: snafu <snafu@kyuzz.org>
Subject: Re: spooky silence

t byfield wrote:

>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.


i totally agree with this i cannot pronounce on events that are so far away
from my location


>> 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;

this doesn't make any difference.

 afaic, TT had no choice whatsoever--
>/~rdom was inaccessible *anyway*,as were many other sites,

i don't understand what "anyway" means, in these circumstances... 

>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;

also this passage is quite dark... which pressures?

 had it
>done so with regard to TT, the result could have been that
>*all* TT hosts--the entire domain--might have been blocked.


why? because if NSI's feels some prickling automatically shuts you down? do
you mean that we are little mouses oon the egde of being squashed by the
big giant? if it's really like that, why don't we address this issue of the
uncontrolled power of NSI's? Where is Paul Garrin? 


>> 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.

panic politics? Seattle was panic politics?

 there are people on this list who've
>been working very diligently to deal with these issues else-
>where;

i'm glad to know that net.time has an hidden agenda. until now i thought
that on net.time was possible to deal with any kind of issue. now i know
that there are some issues, such as hacktivism, that is better to discuss
"elsewhere"

 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.

but Jesus Christ! net.time is hosted by the thing! it's the first place
where we should get informations on the topic...

this delay remains for me totally unaccetable, and it is a very dark page
for this list...


>> 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.

blocked@etoy.com called for massive action and resistance, just
few messages ago... is a fake account, as well?


 etoy decided to go for resistance, instead of taking 100k money. and you
know better than me that without resistance, they would be swallowed and
digested by corporate power in 5 minutes. i don't give a shit to New York
Times reports, they always lie but you cannot call for mobilisation, and
then say that you are not part of it.  

times of jerry rubin trials are gone, but i don't want to fight 
to see at the end someone taking 400k instead of 100k... clear? 
i'm not fighting to rise the value of etoy.SHARES, clear?

 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. 

...and intellectual property is probably the most political issue, nowadays
(from GM food to Microsoft monopoly).

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.'

especially because /~rdom is still down. i find this completely
unaccetable. i wish you are aware that the thing's business -- as you call
it -- has survived only cutting off is political side. something that in
italy, for istance, would never happen. here we continue to support
political prisoners, even if we don't agree with their methods (we simply
believe that prison is not a solution). TT had to survive, but i don't see
any reason for which /~rdom should die. remember that VERIO's decision came
without any judge injunction... it's illegal, since alleged VERIO's
policies has not been discussed by anyone.


>> 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.

yes, but these actions have the quality to unmask the real face
of power. to unmask the fairy tale of the decentered, democratic,
partecipative media. as for censorship in general,  they show the
boundaries in which you can move. they give us the opportunity to touch an
open nerve, to measure our possibilities and the ones of the enemy.
conflict in general give the opportunity to grow. only conflicts indicate
an exit way. 

and indeed there are several forms of conflict: the digital strike is very
close to a performative act (electronic disturbance THEATER, never forget
that) a simulation of a conflict (it doesn't produce any real trouble, at
maximum a bit of white noise) since it's mainly aimed to attract attention
on some issues, to set a common grid of time (Seattle---->>London for
istance)... and to produce various reactions. 

unluckily, there's always people that take fake guns for real
(as it happened with Black Panthers)...


 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.

it's not true. i've read a couple of reports by EDT.

 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.


i'll never forget it. it took off ingenuity from my eyes.

best

snafu


ps i forgot.as far as i know  this web-site is the only one
that keeps an active floodnet, toghether with a kit of tools
which start to be quite complex and funny:

http://www.lamtar.com/guest/%5b...%5d/fra/fake_toy/flood.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:37:09 -0500
From: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Subject: Re: spooky silence

snafu@kyuzz.org (Mon 12/20/99 at 09:23 PM +0100):

 <...>
>  afaic, TT had no choice whatsoever--
> >/~rdom was inaccessible *anyway*,as were many other sites,
> 
> i don't understand what "anyway" means, in these circumstances... 

it means that the EDT webpage wasn't accessible before 
it was deleted because Verio had blocked access to www.
thing.net.


> >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;
> 
> also this passage is quite dark... which pressures?

i don't know; i've certainly encouraged people who're
in a strong position to try to find out what kind of 
pressures might have made NSI shut down the etoy.com
domain.


>  had it
> >done so with regard to TT, the result could have been that
> >*all* TT hosts--the entire domain--might have been blocked.
> 
> why? because if NSI's feels some prickling automatically shuts you down? do
> you mean that we are little mouses oon the egde of being squashed by the
> big giant? 

yes.


>            if it's really like that, why don't we address this issue of the
> uncontrolled power of NSI's? 

NSI's power is very much under control, i assure you. ICANN
has them (and every other 'competitive' registrar) on a very 
short leash indeed.


>                              Where is Paul Garrin? 

here: <http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html>.


> >> 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.
> 
> panic politics? Seattle was panic politics?
> 
>  there are people on this list who've
> >been working very diligently to deal with these issues else-
> >where;
> 
> i'm glad to know that net.time has an hidden agenda. until now i thought
> that on net.time was possible to deal with any kind of issue. now i know
> that there are some issues, such as hacktivism, that is better to discuss
> "elsewhere"

i think your remarks here are completely contrary and nothing
more. if you want the list to discuss something, the best way
to make it happen is to do what you did: bring it up. and for
the rest of what you say, is everyone on the list supposed to 
tell you about all their daily activities? if they don't then 
that's a 'hidden agenda'? bleh. 


>  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.
> 
> but Jesus Christ! net.time is hosted by the thing! it's the first place
> where we should get informations on the topic...

no: if you feel that strongly, it's the first place you should
GIVE information on the topic. first you complain that nettime
has a hidden agenda then you complain that you can't just open
it up like the daily newspaper and have the facts at your fin-
gertips...

 <snip>


> >> 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.'
> 
> especially because /~rdom is still down. i find this completely
> unaccetable. i wish you are aware that the thing's business -- as you call
> it -- has survived only cutting off is political side. something that in
> italy, for istance, would never happen. here we continue to support
> political prisoners, even if we don't agree with their methods (we simply
> believe that prison is not a solution). TT had to survive, but i don't see
> any reason for which /~rdom should die. remember that VERIO's decision came
> without any judge injunction... it's illegal, since alleged VERIO's
> policies has not been discussed by anyone.

it's very easy to jump up and issue all kinds of bombastic
pronunciamentos. sorry, but the only way that closing down
ricardo's website = TT 'cutting off its political side' is
if ricardo = TT's 'political side.' i don't think that's 
so, but you may think it is: fine, we don't need to agree.
it's very unfortunate that the existing power structure of
the net is such that TT can be given an ultimatum such as
'~/rdom or connectivity, take your pick,' but that's how it
works. the timing is a surprise, but the structure isn't.
to say that isn't to defend the situation as fair or just;
i don't think it is--but it is the present reality. 


> >> 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.
> 
> yes, but these actions have the quality to unmask the real face
> of power. to unmask the fairy tale of the decentered, democratic,
> partecipative media. as for censorship in general,  they show the
> boundaries in which you can move. they give us the opportunity to touch an
> open nerve, to measure our possibilities and the ones of the enemy.
> conflict in general give the opportunity to grow. only conflicts indicate
> an exit way. 

yes. the etoy/etoys fight is incredibly important--of course
because it has been *made* important. it's not so clear what
will happen with these other fights yet.


> and indeed there are several forms of conflict: the digital strike is very
> close to a performative act (electronic disturbance THEATER, never forget
> that) a simulation of a conflict (it doesn't produce any real trouble, at
> maximum a bit of white noise) since it's mainly aimed to attract attention
> on some issues, to set a common grid of time (Seattle---->>London for
> istance)... and to produce various reactions. 
>
> unluckily, there's always people that take fake guns for real
> (as it happened with Black Panthers)...

i think the alleged 'theater' aspect of EDT is a convenient
one-foot-in-the-door-and-one-foot-out rhetoric that's quite
typical in art practice these days. it strikes me as *very*
manipulative, because the 'non-theater' part invokes a moral
legacy with which one cannot argue while the 'theater' part
makes it easy to say 'well, you disn't *really* expect this
to actually *change* anything, did you?' which is fine for
people, if that's what they want to do. but i don't believe
the language EDT uses to describe itself any more than i'll
believe the language Etoys uses to describe itself. again,
others may disagree.


>  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.
> 
> it's not true. i've read a couple of reports by EDT.

'YMMV.'

>  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.
> 
> i'll never forget it. it took off ingenuity from my eyes.

more important, you broke the silence.

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