Re: <nettime> Moving Nettime to the Fediverse

[paul <paul@denknerd.org>]

Hello all,

This is my first time responding on nettime-l, after lurking for a 
while (not that long, comparatively - i only discovered this 
amazing list about a year or two ago).  I always look forward to 
reading the well-considered messages, and often humbling levels of 
knowledge of literature, history, etc. that are shared here.
Others have already made all the points i can think of, more 
eloquently so, but i think there's value in adding one's voice, if 
nothing else.  I would be sad to see my favourite mailing list 
scuppered.  Decent, active mailing lists seem very few and far 
between indeed, while email is basically my favourite medium for 
online exchange (i admit my bias - i won't repeat the arguments 
others have made in favour of email).
To try and address some of the many valid questions i've seen:

Ted, you mention nettime stagnating.  I ask this in a naive way, 
as a newcomer to the list (so forgive me if i should know), but 
what is the aim of nettime, exactly?  It seems plausible to me 
that it might be achieving its aim (for argument's sake, "be a 
forum for critical media discussion") quite well even while 
stagnating as a medium.  I ask because i'm quite suspicious of 
arguments that boil down to change being needed for its own sake. 
This reminds me of the ethos of contemporary tech companies that 
seem to change (often for the worse) user interfaces, products, 
entire product lines, etc. while optimising for their bottom line, 
rather than the user's utility.
I want to be explicit that i am definitely not accusing you or the 
other mods of somehow doing something for your own benefit, and i 
certainly don't feel entitled to this amazing service which is 
likely volunteer run at considerable personal cost - i, much like 
many others i'm sure, deeply appreciate this forum.  I just want 
to emphasise that as i see it, being a bastion of stability and 
backwards-compatibility (and consume-as-you-wish) can be quite a 
radical act in the contemporary online ecosphere.  (just random 
thoughts: can nettime be radical both initially, before such 
online communities were popular, and now, when they often take 
place on Web 2.0-type walled garden platforms, but for different 
reasons, while doing the same thing?)
Also, to Jon Lebkowsky's point, i often hear arguments similar in 
shape to "my email inbox is a mess, i can't keep up, let's use 
<platform X>".  As someone who curates their email inflow quite 
carefully, i respectfully want to ask whether switching to some 
other platform would really help with that issue?  I have no 
difficulty imagining being in e.g. a number of Discord servers and 
not keeping up with the influx of messages and profusion of 
threads, either.
I have rambled enough.  I, too, would be happy to volunteer 
financial support or perhaps my efforts if that's useful, for 
maintaining the Mailman infrastructure.  I think nettime-l is a 
rare treasure on the modern internet, and while of course others 
might find value in having their discussions on, say, Mastodon, 
would it make sense for those who want to, join some other 
instance, and not require the nettime moderators to divide their 
efforts running two sets of infrastructure?  There are many 
Mastodon instances, but very few nettime-l's.
All the best, and my sincere and unreserved thanks to those who 
initiated, and now maintain nettime.  Even if you decided to turn 
nettime-l off tomorrow, i would still have learned and had my 
intellectual life enriched.
p.

On 2022-11-30 at 13:30 -05, quoth Ted Byfield 
<tedbyfield@gmail.com>:
> Geoff —
>
> Thanks for this. I agree with the outlines of what you say, and 
> with most of the detail too. Felix and Doma have their own 
> perspectives, so this is just me.
> I'm not sure what you mean about a recurring argument, but 
> that's not to suggest you're mistaken. As a mod, I probably see 
> nettime through a more technical lens than most subscribers 
> would, and that's no doubt shaped how I've talked about the list 
> and its project. That said, I agree the problems aren't 
> technical in nature, and neither would any 'solutions' be — if 
> anyone's inclined to believe in 'solutions' (FWIW, I'm not).
> One example, which Felix touched on: the quasi-generational 
> aspect of email, both relative (when someone ~adopted it) and 
> absolute (how old/young you are). As we noted in the 
> announcement, it's morphed from a pleasure into something more 
> like a utility — in part *because* of its standardization, 
> reliability, etc. Like a lot of nettimers, I've spent decades 
> teaching, and have a fairly broad experience of students' 
> attitudes to email have become more negative. Saying it's 'dead' 
> was hyperbole, i.e, an exaggeration with a seed of truth. Chalk 
> that up to the context: an invitation may say 'happy holidays' 
> or whatever, but it's not intended as a diktat (though I always 
> hear a bit of that ideological force too).
> To say that every discussion-oriented mailing list I'm on is 
> graying would be a serious understatement. They might be 
> fascinating, lively, provocative, solid, or whatever, but the 
> retirement-home vibe is strong indeed. But in our case that's 
> just one piece of a puzzle whose picture is very diffuse — with 
> ~gender / identity issues, regional concentrations, received 
> norms about relevance and style, etc, etc. I think many would 
> agree the list is great *and* has problems — or, if you like, 
> could be greater in new ways.
> It's plainly true that we're hopping on the fediverse bandwagon, 
> so questioning the wisdom of that kind of precipitous action is, 
> without question, wise. (It's also true, though less visible, 
> that it's only the most recent move we've weighed.) But that 
> implies another question: is 'doing nothing' — or at least 
> following the same path wise? In the short term, sure, but in 
> the longer term no, I think. Doing that would all but guarantee 
> the list's historical weaknesses would only become more 
> ingrained, and with that the list would become more and more 
> insular.
> If we had announced we autocratically decided to shut down the 
> list, your criticism would be spot-on, but we didn't — or at 
> least not quite. We did say that maintaining both 
> 'infrastructures' seems like it'd be too much for us, but 
> whatever decisions will be made in that regard can and should be 
> collective. That's an invitation. We don't know to what exactly, 
> or to whom, or when, or how, or anything else.
> For me at least, that uncertainty was/is pretty much the essence 
> of this ~move. It's a risk, but I think nettime's ~stagnation — 
> not just as a list but as a larger project — is largely due to 
> the fact that we haven't found ways to take new risks.
> Cheers,
> Ted
#  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: