User:Laurier Rochon/notes/kleiner response
Dmytri Kleiner - Summary & analysis
"Capital kinda has all the money"
- Workshop at PZI, Feb 2011
< This text is under massaging >
The following is a consensed summary of Dmitry Kleiner's talk and workshop at the Piet Zwart Institute on February 16th, 2011. Kleiner is a software developer, artist and activist part of the Telekommunisten collective. Through his practice, he attempts to demonstrate the convoluted relationships between politics, the internet, different economies and social media. His work tends to stress the complexity of these relationships and highlights many misconceptions, myths and common assumptions made by consumers and creators of digital media.
General umbrella questions relevant to the themes discussed
- Are free systems compatible with capitalism?
- What is(are) the language(s) of the internet's political economy?
- How do relationships define topologies, modes of production?
- Is the Internet a mirror of a certain/some political ideology(ies), and if so, to what extent?
- What is the role and the interest of companies in harvesting and analyzing personal data?
- What is the interaction between state, government and individual when data mining occurs?
Star networks vs mesh networks
Star networks are formed in such a way that a central node acts as a mediator for all 'traffic' coming in and out of nodes, exercising control over the flow of data. Capitalists enjoy this type of network, as it allows for control, and therefore makes the setting of price easy. By having control over circulation, it is easy to perform censorship, favoritism, etc. Examples of this could be almost any social media platform (facebook, twitter, flickr, tumblr, etc.)
Mesh networks on the other hand, are rhizomic in nature and allow nodes to connect with each other directly, without needing to go through a third party. Examples of this could include email, IRC or usenet. This second type of network is much 'lighter' in infrastructre, and decentralized in nature. There is no central authority regulating exchange of information between parties, who are free to connect without the influence of an external (or overarching) force.
The other point I wish Kleiner has fleshed out a bit more was the major difference it makes to have all data centralized in one place. Understandably, this puts more stress on issues of privacy and security, but from a user's point of view, it allows one to have a potentially much richer experience, as the cross-referencing of information is made possible. This is reflected in such services as 'recommendations' or targeted suggestions. By having all data available at once, it is technically much simpler to have algorithmic processes decide what you might be interested in. On the other hand, a decentralized system makes discussion much more difficult, as one does not know exactly who is following/friending you, rendering the communication scheme much more complex (ex: you have go through many hoops to figure out who might be of interest, or who is following you). The broadcasting mode from this model is much more unidirectional - sender > receiver.
Past work: Thimbl and Deadswap
Thimbl is free, open source and distributed micro-blogging. It allows one to be followed at his own domain, using nothing else than finger and SSH. The aim of the project is partly to demonstrate that services like Twitter are not necessary to achieve a similar update/follow mechanism, but rather these tools have been around for decades - just not wrapped in a Web 2.0 'package' by a corporation yet. By using the .plan file on your domain, one can update his 'plan', and let others know what's going on at the moment.
Deadswap is an offline file sharing system that travels on a USB stick. By using SMS gateway, one can request the key, and the owner has to arrange a meeting/dropoff spot for it to be picked up. On the actual key is a wiki that can be modified if wanted. The purpose of this project is to demonstrate how much more diffcult it would be to share information without the internet, and how much this technology has become ubiquitous in our lives.
I think the idea of Thimbl is great, and a novel one. Having people interact only through their own domain, on their own personal terms at all times is something I truly believe in (have your website be your 'digital identity holder'). On the other hand, there is a great paradox to use these for social functions (i.e. micro-blogging) and not have a communal space within which to interact. This would be, to me, the equivalent of watching a TV show with 5 of my friends, connected by phone - there is not much that is social to that. What web 2.0 social media corporations provide is precisely this social space - this digital community center for all to congregate. Furthermore, I can see many technical challenges for a decentralized system of the sort, as the responsibility for consistency relies on every individual's shoulders.
Attention economy & reputation economy
Attention economy via Dallas Smythe : the commidity is the audience, not the actual media (i.e. the tv program is free, but the audience is what is being sold). Behavior control is what the tv programmers pay for, not the actual time slot.
Reputation is an extension of social capitalism - within social media services, all voices are not equal - this is a false sense of democratic equality, where everyone is supposed to have an equal say. In truth, the people who come onto social media platforms with established reputations in the real world, will have a much stronger voice than others.
Capitalism is a particular mode of production -> people who have to sell their labor because they don't own means of production = the employees don't own what they make -> cannot set the price of it -> you can't create a free culture -> the institutions own the products -> they have to change in order to create a free culture
In regards to the 'democratic ability' of the internet, Kleiner is absolutely right to stipulate that real-world entities that enter the digital realm can leverage their power and influence to follow them in the digital one. In all cases, large corporations, popular singers and well-known politicians will detain more social capital than others when they appear in digital form. On the other hand, the strongest 'democratic component of the internet would rely in its ability to even give a voice to people who did not have one before. Even better, in some cases it can amplify one's small voice into something slightly louder - which on a global scale could make a massive difference.
Quick history of the internet
Originally created by a consortium of people : military, NGOs, computer geeks and hobbyists. It evolved into something much bigger than expected. Around 2000, capitalists started buying everything they could on it, out of fear that it would grow beyond their control (dot com boom). They then created services (client-server systems) that rely on star networks to operate. People must sign into particular terms of service defined by the company, and abide by their rules as long as they use this service. Interestingly enough, these services seem to have evolved in a parallel fashion to the ones that depend on mesh networks such as email, usenet, irc, etc. They have also intermingled, as email, for example, is often done through the services of a private company (google, hotmail, etc.)
Albeit this analysis being extremely short (this is also a condensed version - partly my fault), terribly subjective and missing a huge amount of information to be anywhere close to comprehensive, I enjoy this take on how things evolved from a very leftist perspective. The chronology of the internet is usually defined in technical terms, but Kleiner here defines it through its political evolution. In this respect, I find it refreshing and important to remind ourselves of the multilateral dimensions that shaped the medium.
On free software and social media money
It seems like emulating already existing software such as diaspora wanting to take over Facebook is not such a great idea. Such services will never be able to have the upper hand, as they will never be funded as heavily (or even close) to the likes of Facebook. The smarter thing that these companies can do is to try to be as lightweight as possible, decentralized as possible and do something that is architecturally as different as possible as what the big companies arranged around star networks are creating.
Interesting note : Mark Zuckerberg has donated to the diaspora project - and in general, large corporations are very interested in free software : they represent important capital. I.e. hosting companies use the free software apache to run their servers, but sell hosting plans that cost money. The revenue is made upstream, by selling a product bundle including the free software.
In reference to the first point, I wholeheartedly agree. It seems like the evolution of digital technologies in the last 10 years has shown clearly that we are simply starting to see the full gradient of potential communication platforms built on top of the internet. As we strive for different levels of personalization in our interpersonal contacts, alternative forms of communication emerge with their singular voice and unique qualities. Think of text messaging, blogging, mobile geolocalization, etc. Going further, I believe Kleiner's project, Thimlb, should use this strength to his advantage much more. On their website, Thimbl is branded as a 'micro-blogging' service, which essentially puts it in the same category as Posterous, Twitter and Identica. Yet Thimbl is unique in its (dis)ability to see who is following you, and by the obvious fact that it works in a completely decentralized fashion. These qualities certainly affect the use of the service, and therefore they should perhaps reconsider the idea that Thimbl is comparable to, but different than Twitter - and simply make up a brand new category for it.
The three acts of copyright (tragedy)
1. anti-copyright : copyright came at the same time as capitalism, it is a component of Bourgeois property. anti-copyright is simply being against the idea of commmodifying artistic production (as earlier proponents of dadaism were, for example)
2. copyleft - the invasion of the bourgeoisie. The right of the consumer to become a producer. In this model, free software is wildly successful. The difference between anti-copyright and copyleft : anti-copyright is a fringe, anti movement - copyleft is more about intellectual property, etc. Anti-copyright is not compatible with capitalism.
3. Creative commons : boosted by the free software movement. The consumer is denied the right to become a producer
Epilogue : copyfarleft - employs the non-commercial clause used by some creative commons licenses, but adds a limitation to the clause