<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[iDC] Re: iDC Digest, Vol 33, Issue
4</title></head><body>
<div>In my humble opinion, the project Tisseli mentions has been one
of the most interesting projects so far dealing with recent mobile
media for shaping 'tools' for minimal mediation (I would call it
'reality-based interfaces', but it might be a too long story). It
suggests a possibility for networking from//to "real life"
and public spaces -- not a communication between private-to-private
bubbles that most mediating technologies tend to design -- foreseeing
a possible use of devices that could encourage individuals to
participate in the shaping of public spaces, evolving awareness
regarding social reality<br>
</div>
<div>I like the expression 'to go out of "The House"', used
by Tisseli and would take it as an idea to go public, as a possibility
to shape the use of the technology that has been dropped on us as
consumers. Can any community use face the official powers and
corporations strategies mentioned by Eric? Not really, as corporative
thinking would rather tend to fabricate "realities"
according to their marketing needs and it is somehow happening around
web 2.0 discourses.<br>
</div>
<div>Back to Tisseli's project (Zexe.net, by Toni Abad), I would
really like to be optimistic enough to foresee there a distribution of
mobile phone technology to the internet over a "many-to-many
architecture", which could/should somehow shape the use of the
technology.</div>
<div><br>
Whether a strongly connected community will produce independence,
bring forward social change or just add more hype over social
networking sites, is a further question. And to point it to the
Brazilian context is a really complex matter.<br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Lucas Bambozzi</div>
<div><font size="+1" color="#000000"><br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 18:49 +0200 6/7/07, Eugenio Tisselli wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi Eric, hi all,<br>
<br>
I am also a subscriber to this list, and this is my first
intervention. My name is Eugenio Tisselli, and I am the developer
behind zexe.net (http://www.zexe.net), a project in which specific
urban collectives broadcast their daily experiences from mobile phones
directly to the web. These collectives have included so far people on
wheelchairs in Barcelona mapping the architecural barriers in the
city, and motorcycle messengers (motoboys) in Sao Paulo, Brazil, among
others.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>From my point of view, small collectives
engaged in communicative processes which are mediated by digital
technology seek not only to represent themselves as a social entity,
but also to make visible the invisible: the day to day issues that
they encounter in their cities, which are particlar to them and many
times constitute problems or specific issues that affect their urban
life. This process of visibilization is intended to have an effect not
only on the general public, but also on the local government. It is a
dialog initiated by a concerned party; a dialog in which the ones that
are directly affected by a problem present their points of view by
telling exactly where the problem is and how it could be solved. Then,
as in every dialog, they expect an answer from their fellow citizens
(people on wheelchairs, for example, took pictures of cars parked on
the sidewalks that blocked their way... they hoped that their fellow
citizens would stop doing that after seeing the pictures) and the
government (again, in the case of the disabled people, a map with all
the obstacles was printed out and handed to local authorities, hoping
that they would act and adapt the public infrastructures)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
The key here is dialog. Each part has to hold its ground. The dialog
should develop on a ground that is as neutral as possible. Of course,
total neutrality is an abstract and nonexistent concept, but at least
we can think of a place that is not directly owned by any of the parts
engaged in conversation. I believe it is wrong (a populist measure, as
you put it) for governments to try to appropriate these modes of
dialog by putting forward "web 2.0-like" tools to
communicate with the citizens. By this, they would bring the
conversation to their own headquarters, restricting the relative
liberty that citizens may feel when speaking on a more neutral ground,
and rendering dialog ineffective. In order to bring forward social
change, a certain degree of antagonism (and hence, independence) is
needed.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>So, for me, the central question is not
necessary surveillance (although it is also important) but
independence. I think that communities engaged in digital
communicative practices should reclaim and protect their independence
from local governments. Keeping the discussion out of "The House"
is the only way that demands and compromises can hold some
credibility.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Best,<br>
Eugenio.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:29:26 -0400<br>
From: Eric Gordon <eric_gordon@emerson.edu><br>
Subject: [iDC] city as social network<br>
To: iDC@mailman.thing.net<br>
Message-ID:
<EA7AA5D6-B460-4F97-8BBB-11A88DE3BA9A@emerson.edu><br>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Hi everyone. My name is Eric Gordon – I’ve been watching
this list<br>
for some time but I’ve made only a few contributions. Perhaps
as a<br>
means of forcing my involvement, Trebor has asked me to moderate a<br>
discussion on the topic that has lately occupied most of my time
–<br>
place-based social media and its implications for privacy, public<br>
space, and democratic engagement. Following the recent
conversation<br>
about Feedburner, I want to consider how that discussion might
extend<br>
to physical communities (neighborhood, organization, city) that
are</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>enabled/bolstered/fortified by social web
media. Many community<br>
groups and neighborhood organizations are using digital networking<br>
technologies to foster community interaction (http://<br>
www.ibrattleboro.com/). And of course, what is widely known
as<br>
citizen journalism plays into this as well – placebloggers
(http://<br>
placebloggers.com) and Community Media organizations tend towards<br>
hyperlocal networked content (http://www.cctvcambridge.org/) with
an<br>
aim towards reinforcing existing geographical connections.
The<br>
processes that bind non-geographical communities in networks are<br>
similar to those that are binding geographical communities –
shared<br>
interests, practices, goals, etc. However, unlike
traditional<br>
online communities that have a basis in anonymity, digitally<br>
annotated physical communities often rely on the full disclosure
of<br>
identity for their functionality. For instance, when it comes
to<br>
neighborhood issues – it is important to know one’s real name
and<br>
location.<br>
<br>
And as city governments are seeking ways to adopt “web 2.0”<br>
technologies into their existing “citizen management” projects,
the<br>
lack of anonymity and the simple traceability of social actions
open<br>
up new concerns. Social media tools have the capacity
to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>significantly expand participation in
local governance, but they also<br>
have the capacity to trace citizen behavior and map social trends.<br>
Cities are interested in this technology for the same reason
that</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>corporations are – it offers valuable
user data. Politicians can<br>
survey the concerns of their constituency; agencies can identify<br>
problems in neighborhoods; and law enforcement…well, there are
many<br>
scenarios possible. It can also be turned around: citizens can
have<br>
greater access to their politicians, and government proceedings
can<br>
at least have the impression of transparency.<br>
<br>
While the conversations on this list have devoted considerable
time</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>to corporate surveillance, the question
not often asked in this</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>context is what should be made of local
surveillance – from the<br>
people in one’s neighborhood to city governments? In the wake
of<br>
connectivity, discourse and collaboration, there is always<br>
documentation, processing and interpretation. From neighborhood<br>
chatrooms to local annotated mapping projects to virtual town
hall</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>meetings, participation equals
surveillance – for better or for worse.<br>
<br>
When I consider a digital future in which I want to live – it<br>
includes networked access to my neighborhood services,
communities,<br>
city government and public spaces. However, there is
little</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>possibility for that to take place
outside of the proliferation of<br>
data that would make communities vulnerable to excessive internal
and<br>
external management. And as citywide wifi and mobile web devices<br>
proliferate, the outlets for that recycled data expand. At the
same</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>time, American cities, like corporations,
are glomming onto digital</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>media because of its populist
resonances. They are paying attention</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>to online neighborhoods and seeking to
aggregate that data into</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>meaningful information. The
ideology of digital media – as evidenced</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>in the phrases “participatory media”
and “user-generated content” –<br>
is accessibility. Digital media directly aligns the rhetoric
of<br>
progress with the rhetoric of populism. Social web media
makes</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>explicit what has only been implied in
the recent rhetoric of city<br>
governments – that anyone, regardless of social position,
can</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>participate in the ordering of city
experience and politics.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
From cities to towns to neighborhoods, the populist promise
of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>social web media is transforming the
nature of public space and civic</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>participation. I am referring only
to the American context, because<br>
that’s what I know, but it would be great to engage in
comparative<br>
dialogue in order to better understand the scope of how
these</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>technologies are being implemented in
official or unofficial</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>capacities to change perceptions of
cities and city life, not to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>mention public space and community
engagement.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I suppose I’ll leave it at that for
now. I look forward to the<br>
conversation.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Eric<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <br>
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20070705/1ea11957/<span
></span>attachment-0001.html<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
iDC mailing list<br>
iDC@mailman.thing.net<br>
http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC)<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
www.distributedcreativity.org<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br>
(iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology,<br>
and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
End of iDC Digest, Vol 33, Issue 4<br>
**********************************<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)<br>
iDC@mailman.thing.net<br>
http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc<br>
<br>
List Archive:<br>
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<br>
<br>
iDC Photo Stream:<br>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<br>
<br>
RSS feed:<br>
http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>temp mobile: +49 (0) 1520 6453417<br>
<br>
lbambozzi@comum.com<br>
bambozzi@gmail.com<br>
diphusa@comum.com</div>
</body>
</html>