Re: <nettime> Christchurch and the Dark Social Web by Luke Munn

Thanks Francis and Brian et al

When Francis points out that

[….]This kind of description ascribes a lot of power/agency to the technical
medium and does in my opinion not fully grasp the agency of individuals
who have to actively seek this content (they have to go online,
subscribe to certain streams, pick their phones and read messages, click
on more extreme content and so on).

Francis appears to be arguing that we can differentiate the workings of human agency from the devices, ‘smart’ infrastructurse and platforms that

are *also* the result of human agency. There is still an important role for forums (like this one) which struggle to examin the changing 'digital condition’ not

only from the perspective of explicit content but also in terms of how various (often profit driven) configurations might actually amplify our worst or

our better impulses. Remembering that the gun lobby like to tell us that its people that do the killing not guns is a useful reminder that

technology is not neutral. This is not to underplay the role of human agency but it is to insist that the presence of this agency doesn’t begin and

end with the users but is at work from the earliest point at which these platforms, devices and interfaces are configured.

Brian wrote

But now all social relations in all the developed societies are in some way mediated by networks. That means two things simultaneously: computer networks seep into all culture, and all elements of culture - including the worst and most rancid white supremacy - seep directly into computer networks.

The near total cybernetic entanglement that Brian points to is no reason to turn our attention away from political and sociological analysis of the formation of digital infrastructures. On the contrary it is their fading into the the background to become ‘the environment” that makes them so powerful frequently insidious and so vital to contest.

David Garcia

On 19 Mar 2019, at 19:13, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:28 AM Francis Hunger <francis.hunger@irmielin.org> wrote:
So I wonder, why does the discussion want to look into the
"sociotechnical properties of that environment" instead of looking into
the political dimension which forms and enables humans who wish to kill
other humans.

This is spot on, and it calls for some revision of an old project: "an immanent critique of the networks" -- which was the idea that Geert, I believe, launched long ago (please set the record straight if it was someone else, or a more collective ambition from the get-go).

A focus on, of and for computer networks has been valuable, no question. But now all social relations in all the developed societies are in some way mediated by networks. That means two things simultaneously: computer networks seep into all culture, and all elements of culture - including the worst and most rancid white supremacy - seep directly into computer networks. The daunting conclusion might be that the critique of networked cultures (Frankfurt School in a Linux box) must again become a general anthropology of globalizing society. Kulturkritik, full stop.

Thoughts?

Brian
# 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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: