Re: Syndicate: bureau automation

[Amy Alexander <plagiari@plagiarist.org>]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Frederic Madre wrote:

>
> >are those for whom existing options may not work; would be good if they had the same options.
>
> maybe, but if it is the list itself that provides this
> it becomes part of the list's culture
> the realm of creative filtering should not be that of exclusion
> it lies more in
> the mix
>
i see your point, which i think is that the presentation (is this
filtering "out" or mixing "in"?) is sensitive.

what's interesting about this discussion is how the many-to-many
model of listserv vs. traditional broadcast communication brings
up issues of sensitivity of control. the clients/recipients/users/viewers
now have much more control over the communication. where we used
to worry about exclusion/censorship on the privileged server/broadcaster end,
but didn't worry much about the clients/viewers beyond whether they
had access, now "anyone" (in quotes because i don't mean it literally)
can "broadcast", but as we've seen, raw many-to-many is more than
some clients/recipients can deal with, so their access and use of
filtering becomes an issue of control. and, as you point out, it's
all the more sensitive if the broadcasters or central broadcast
pseudo-authority are in the position of encouraging it. can appear
to be client-side censorship.

> >yes, but there are people with limited bandwidth who are getting
> >overwhelmed with the volume of mail, so it would be good to come up
> >with a plan for them.
>
> it's impossible
> they would not be reading the same list as the rest
> how would they be able to react in tune ?
> there is enough misunderstanding already
>

well, my point has been that they are already not reading the same
list as the rest. i really feel like a lot of the recent conflicts
on the list came out of a rashomon-like situation. the people who
had been successfully (for their own purposes) filtering were reading
a different list than everyone else, and tended to be surprised
that other people were so upset about the volume of nn mail.
some people suggested, "filter - don't censor!" and other people responded
with "how do you filter?" or "i can filter but only on the client
side so it ties up my bandwidth."

it seemed there were have and have-nots of filtering, and though
that might sound like some sort of geek minutae, really it comes down
to access to control of reception - which i'd argue on a listserv
is at least as important as access to control of broadcast.
if the information coming in is too tangled or cumbersome, then it
can't be read effectively. in worst cases, people may unsubscribe
from lists because they can't handle all the mail coming in, if they
don't have access to or knowledge of effective filtering. (effective
for their own purposes, not dictated by the list - that is the tricky
part.)


> >users to customize what they read on a list would be consistent with
> >self-rule. and i wouldn't consider it technocratic; after all, i can throw
>
> sure, if it's self rule (parametrization) and not central rule (configuration)
>

yes, though the trick is in giving enough control to the s*bscr*bers of
how the parameterization functions without making it so complex as to
make it something only the technically experienced and/or extremely
patient can deal with. again, might sound like administrative trivia,
but really does become a question of access.


> looks like we agree!
>
yay! :-)

-amy

-- 
plagiarist.org
Recontextualizing script-kiddyism as net-art for over 1/20 of a century.



-----Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
Syndicate network for media culture and media art
information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate@eg-r.isp-eg.de>
to unsubscribe, write to <majordomo@eg-r.isp-eg.de>, in
the body of the msg: unsubscribe syndicate your@email.adress