[iDC] Autonomous spaces online?

Thu Mar 23 03:19:56 EST 2006

Hi,

thanks for the invitation to participate to the list

reading your last posts, the main problem seems to be time acting  
like a "rouleau compresseur" on the autonomy process, as if things  
have to remain little otherwise after a certain time of growth, their  
shape will change.

autonomy seems possible temporary, because then things are escaping  
to other states,
time and size,
a natural process against autonomy?

the utopian experience of "montagne verdi" with anarchists &  
libertarians gave equally birth to extreme left ideas and nazism

coming back to the idea of open source and free software community,  
and to the idea of autonomy in technology: systemic enclosure seems  
to be part of the deal

a bit like art when it is perceived as holy and unreachable by the  
massive part of the population,  those who are autonomous technically  
can today be compared to the new clericans of our age, they have a  
very rare knowledge but their attitude is not always open and  
tolerant which is quite schysophrenic if they want to enlarge the use  
of free softwares and open source, if there is no bridge, there won't  
be a large use

in france, where state funding is the more common way to fund art  
projects, i guess that a solution towards more autonmy could be to go  
in direction of mixte fundings: state and private fundings, to  
diversify the ressources, in order to reduce the power of each

i agree that with the money of the net economy, a lot of good  
projects emerged, even if they were financed by the "devil" (just for  
fun), it gave a lot of ressources for creativity, since that period,  
many good creators were obliged to move from the art or research  
world to fund themselves...

Isabelle Arvers

www.isabelle-arvers.com

Le 23 mars 06 à 03:22, john sobol a écrit :

>>
>>> A few days ago YouTube was bought by MTV.
>>> MySpace is now in Rupert Murdoch's hands.
>>> ICQ was obtained by AOL.
>>> Google acquired Writely as part of their online vision.
>>> Blogger is of course in Google's pocket for a long time.
>>> Del.icio.us and Flickr are now owned by Yahoo.
>>
>
> Hi
>
> Is it necessarily the case that developing new and appealing social  
> networking communities, watching them flower and then selling them  
> off, is an inherently unsustainable or negative socio-economic  
> pattern? Has the quality of these services decreased substantially  
> since being bought? Do you foresee that it will? Does it even matter?
>
> Might we make a valid comparison to, say, bands gaining local or  
> cult followings and then signing with major labels and going  
> mainstream? The idea that bands who do this are 'selling out' is  
> pretty outdated by now, right? We all know that bands can be rich  
> and famous and still have creative integrity and artistic merit.  
> But we also know that newer, fresher and more relevant bands will  
> emerge to renew the process again and again. And audiences will  
> move from one band to the next, or stay with their favourites, (as  
> they may stay with or move on from MySpace) but the churn is  
> desirable and lucrative and feeds creative and economic growth  
> within the music industry.
>
> If we don't look at the buyout of what were once cult-fave sites as  
> selling out but rather as a kind of natural maturation leading  
> towards eventual natural obsolescence and replacement then all this  
> money being injected into the gift economy may be a good thing.  
> Sure some people will take the bucks and run but others will invest  
> in new cool sites and projects, (i.e. Langlois, Skoll, Glaser et  
> al.). We'll miss the good sites that once were in a nostalgic kind  
> of way perhaps (hello Bolt.com? Hello Psyche? etc.etc.etc.) but  
> only in the same we enjoy hearing songs from our youth (or  
> don't) .  The companies that buy the eyeballs that come with these  
> sites will milk their investments as hard and long as they can (and  
> not always being complete idiots they will not always rape and  
> pillage their investment but may even support and amplify its  
> strengths) until people are tired of it or something better comes  
> along, which is likely to be sooner rather than later. And might  
> not the gift economy then gain greater and greater economic scope  
> and influence as the list of online communities that 1) thrive 2)  
> are successfully economically leveraged and 3) pass away, grows  
> longer and longer?
>
> Getting bought by Salon didn't destroy the Well, but its importance  
> has greatly diminished because the networked world around it has  
> caught up and surpassed it in magnetic and catalytic and discursive  
> power. Maybe this is not regrettable but entirely normal and  
> desirable. What is the natural decay rate of a networked community?  
> What comes after Flickr with ads? Check back in 6 or 12 months and  
> we'll see.
>
> No doubt a more balanced analysis would highlight many reservations  
> about this model but I thought I'd throw it out there for  
> consideration...
>
> js
>
> --
> www.johnsobol.com
> bluesology • printopolis • digitopia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20060323/486b121a/attachment-0002.htm