User:)biyibiyibiyi(/RW&RM 04/thesis o 0 0 1

Introduction:

1. Background

During the last fifteen years, there has been proliferating practices of grass root, DIY networking around the world. Grass root DIY networking practices is a counter narrative to mainstream networking, responding to pathologies of the modern networked world, such as opacity of network infrastructure and asymmetry of power between network monopolies and users (Dragona & Charitos, 2017). Projects that can be categorized as grass root DIY networking vary by their technical medium, original context, locality and scale. A few examples can be used to illustrate these varying projects under the same shared notion of counter-infrastructure, such as autonomous feminist servers, local mesh networks for site specific communities, and experimental, speculative infrastructures to propose critical imaginaries, that may be of limited scale and application.

The building and facilitation of grass root DIY networks often utilize Free/Libre Open Source Software (F/LOSS) tools and open hardware, and adhere to their core principles of freedom to use, modify and redistribute. At the same time, the adaptation of open principles reaffirm objectives of grass root, DIY networking practices. Openness can be used as a tool to create accessibility, for those who are at the margins and are not connected to networks provided by mainstream providers. Additionally, accessibility can also mean an accessible option, a possibility for alternative, in addition to relying on network infrastructures from mainstream providers. Openness can also provide transparency, in terms of visibility of network's topological structure, visibility of processes that happen during maintaining and taking care of shared networks, such as making decisions, reaching consensus, raising suggestions and critiques, amongst a group of users, so that power is distributed in a visible, horizontal and democratic manner. Openness can also encourage reproduce-ability, encouraging more communities to take similar actions - the potentials of openness are multifaceted, and I will not go on with its elaboration.

The research of DIY grass root networking practices will also be studied in tandem with media archaeology. The interest in media archaeology is two fold. First, the field of networking is a sedimented terrain, consisted of layers built on top of existing layers. Media archaeological approaches to studying networks will unravel historical lineages of network development, and shed light on understanding how modern network's topology, attributions, structures and qualities come into beings as of today. Second, there has been recurring interests and practices devoted to networking with retro, phased out media, such as radio communication networks. Archaeological reuse of these media effectively provoke a tension in temporality that critically question the nature and affordances of networking, in the age of the networked world that's promising faster speed, greater durability, larger bandwidth and constant connectivity. This thesis will examine networking combined with media archaeology in the following two aspects. First, understanding the current state of networking in a reverse engineering manner, by looking back to histories of networking. Second, surveying the reuse of retro, considered-as phased out media in DIY networking practices.

2. Thesis statement

DIY hacktivism, decentralizing infrastructures provide bottom up, peer to peer working attitude and methods. It is not only a contemporary phenomenon but also has deep roots in records in media archaeology. Working in this attitude and formats invites porosity, flexibility and transparency in critical collective making. Through the process of critical making, interpretive tools can be built to amend to technical illiteracy and alienation of human-machine relationship.

Chapter 1: Excavating the formation of modern networking. This chapter looks into history of networking, in particular its social, cultural and political implications. An illustrative example is the development of ARPANET in context of Cold War politics, as opposed to distributive networking protocols such as Usenet. During this time, civic dissents towards authoritative abuse of technology arose. Interpretive tools aiming to achieve social and political autonomy were made available, such as the Whole World Catalog, Computer Lib and Homebrew Computer Club. Historical investigation aim to answer: how did the notions of centralization and decentralization in into being? How may historical reading of technological counter culture inform contemporary hacker culture?

Body:

Topic 1:

Point A: Point B:

Topic 2:

Point A: Point B:

Topic 3:

Point A: Point B: