March 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: origins of facebook
by Michel Bauwens 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

thanks Dante! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM Subject: origins of facebook To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com http://www.brainsturbator.com/articles/facebook_the_cia_and_you/ excerpt : Just Kids Being Kids [image: Mark Zuckerberg Facebook]Anyone who has concerns about their “privacy” being violated by Facebook is completely, unconditionally justified in their concern. After all, Facebook was born out of data theft—founder Mark Zuckerberg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg> *stole tens of thousands of digital files on his fellow Harvard students, directly from the University’s “secure” servers.* Maybe that’s alarming to you, but I find it endearingly psychotic. Anyone who can found a multi-billion dollar business with *stolen property* is worth paying attention to. From the always-excellent Fast Company magazine<http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/115/open_features-hacker-dropout-ceo.ht…> : Harvard didn’t offer a student directory with photos and basic information, known at most schools as a face book. Zuckerberg wanted to build an online version for Harvard, but the school *“kept on saying that there were all these reasons why they couldn’t aggregate this information,”* he says. *“I just wanted to show that it could be done.”* *So one night early in his sophomore year, he hacked into Harvard’s student records.* He then threw up a basic site called Facemash, which randomly paired photos of undergraduates and invited visitors to determine which one was “hotter” (not unlike the Web site Hot or Not). Four hours, 450 visitors, and 22,000 photo views later, Harvard yanked Zuckerberg’s Internet connection. After a dressing-down from the administration and an uproar on campus chronicled by The Harvard Crimson, Zuckerberg politely apologized to his fellow students. But he remained convinced he’d done the right thing: “I thought that the information should be available.” (Harvard declined to comment on the episode.) The next anaecdote in the article is even more telling and fairly funny, too. Since Fast Company was kind enough not to sue me over my excessive quotitude in the Clotaire Rapaille article<http://www.brainsturbator.com/site/comments/clotaire_rapaille_we_salute_you/>, I figure I’ll push the envelope a little further: The new project consumed so much of his time that by the end of the first semester, with just two days to go before his art-history final, he was in a serious jam: He needed to be able to discuss 500 images from the Augustan period. “This isn’t the kind of thing where you can just go in and figure out how to do it, like calculus or math,” he says, without a trace of irony. “You actually have to learn these things ahead of time.” *So he pulled a Tom Sawyer: He built a Web site with one image per page and a place for comments. Then he emailed members of his class and invited them to share their notes, like a study group on cybersteroids. “Within two hours, all the images were populated with notes,” he says. “I did very well in that class. We all did.”* -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: I have yet to see it in operation - but sounds interstng 3D printing
by Michel Bauwens 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Petz <ravenwyn(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 AM Subject: I have yet to see it in operation - but sounds interstng 3D printing To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> http://www.economist.com/node/18114327?Story_ID=18114327&CFID=156520647&CFT… and http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/12/3d-printing-and-fabrication-open-s… -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

bibliography on scarcity/abundance
by Michel Bauwens 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

Dear friends, part of Dougald's excellent site/blog are book recommendations, and here is one on abundance/scarcity economics: http://dougald.co.uk/scarcebooks.htm -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

"Who are some people who are researching the politics of collaboration?"
by Michel Bauwens 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

Any sources on this, that I can forward and post to Quora? Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Quora <noreply(a)quora.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:57 AM Subject: Seb Paquet wants you to answer "Who are some people who are researching the politics of collaboration?" To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com [image: Quora]Seb Paquet wants you to answer "Who are some people who are researching the politics of collaboration?" Seb Paquet wants you to answer the question "Who are some people who are researching the politics of collaboration?" *To view the question page, click here: http://www.quora.com/l/qeJAngBf* Thanks, The Quora Team To control which emails we send you, visit: http://www.quora.com/l/KiPvc6rZ This email was sent by Quora, a continually improving collection of questions and answers created, edited, and organized by everyone who uses it. To disable all email from Quora, visit the following link: http://www.quora.com/l/TqpCpcvd -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

3 3

inequality numbers : 3000 people in US owning 1000 times more then 270 million people in the US combined ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

how much "ownership" does that correspond to - in percentage of property ? in percentage of stock market ownership ? in percentage of ownership of the total world economy ? in money ? how is this money used ? any other statistics you know revolving around this ? regarding world population inequality between the top 0,001 percent, and 90 percent of the "least rich" population ? what about "power" in terms of "decision making entities" ? certain companies, or governments have huge powers, but who truly has an influence on them ? is the 0,001 richest percent who owns 1000 times more then the bottom 90 percent in control of these companies and governments ? As to equal the "richness" of the "3000 richest american people", it would require 270 000 000 000 ( 270 billion ) people as rich as one of the ( so called ) richest populations on earth ? How many times richer are the 3000 richest americans, compared to 3000 of the richest non-americans ? In addition to link below, some googling leads me to the following pdf , in relation to "superclass" : 1. http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/jia/241-246_long_bookreviews.pdf How can one talk of a "market" when a few people own 1000 times more financial power then almost all the rest ? Is it in their interest to keep or make people poor ? Not to become richer, but to keep control ? http://cognitivedissonance.tumblr.com/post/2345941801/plutocracy-reborn-u-s… excerpt : In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality> .

2 1

As Barriers to Entry are Lowered, Wages will be Destroyed
by Patrick Anderson 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

As the overhead to participate is reduced, the number of potential workers is increased. As capital-outlay approaches zero, all peers will have the chance to reverse-bid for any job for which they have skills. This will cause wages to fall to the minimum since there will then be nothing to stop consumers from hiring the lowest bidder. Is this an expected result? What can we do to solve this dilemma?

3 2

Fidonet in community wireless projects?
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

Interesting question, does anyone have the answer? I'll relay to FAcebook, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Facebook <update+pjiidwm(a)facebookmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:41 AM Subject: Lorraine Lee commented on your link. To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> facebook<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…> Hi Michel, Lorraine Lee commented on your link. Lorraine wrote: "Whatever happened to Fidonet? Is the dna of fidonet alive in some of there community wireless projects we keep hearing about?" See the comment thread<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…> Reply to this email to comment on this link. Thanks, The Facebook Team See Comment<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…>The message was sent to michelsub2004(a)gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe<http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=c05bf5&u=528245547&mid=3ecb58eG1f7c632bGe0a…>. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303 -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

5 6

Fwd: p2p and marxism debate, first 'real' reply to Jean Lievens
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM Subject: p2p and marxism debate, first 'real' reply to Jean Lievens To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Cc: jean lievens <jean.lievens(a)base.be>, orsan(a)tie-netherlands.nl, Walton Pantland <waltonp(a)gmail.com>, Raoul <raoulv(a)club-internet.fr>, Vasilis Kostakis <kostakis.b(a)gmail.com>, George Papanikolaou <georgepapani(a)gmail.com>, "Dafermos, George" <g.n.dafermos(a)tudelft.nl>, Johan Söderberg < johan.soderberg(a)sts.gu.se>, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com>, phoebe moore < pvm.doc(a)gmail.com> (Jean, in response to http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of?, first identified theme) The historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of capitalism Dear Jean, Here is a start to my response to your stimulating text. I will use my own proposed fragmentation of your text and respond section by section; not necessarily as a direct response to your arguments, but certainly covering the same topic. Topic one is the historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of capitalism I think I can broadly share your assessment: - the historical movement's relative failure: The fact that the mainstream labour movement has accepted all the main principles of the current dominant system, and has now, in its social-democratic or actually 'left-neoliberal' form, mainly become a crisis manager for the system, being on the defensive in terms of civic rights, welfare rights and solidarity mechanims. It's merely trying to stem the flows of the losses The Stalinist wing, who counted on the solidarity of the totalitarian regimes, has collapsed with the disappearance of those regimes. I think what has collapsed though is in effect the believability of a systemic alternative to the present system, leaving workers and citizens in a defensive mode, under the constant aggressions of financial capital and its predatory demands. Some general critical points: - the socialist movement was generally a movement that operated within capitalism, and demanded better modalities for those that it represented, which it actually achieved with a relative successful - the successful revolutions turned into counter-examples, as they actually also used the main modalities of capitalism, i.e. waged labour in factories, under even less free conditions I also have more fundamental critique. My opinion is that Marxism did not have a real transition strategy, i.e. it assumed that workers movement needed to take control of the commanding heights of the economy and that only then could a transition start, after a change in ownership and governance. My reading of history is that previous phase transitions did not occur that way. What in fact happened is that proto-feudalism and proto-capitalist practices first occurred within the old dominant system, and through centuries of maturation, achieved critical mass, slowly forming an intermeshed counter-logic, and creating a social basis for its demands. Only when these demands could not be met by the older system, and that older system could no longer provide the needs of the population, did phase transitions actually occur. But it is very hard to see proto-socialist practices within the capitalist system? My hypothesis is that these are only occuring in the last two decades, under the form of commons-based peer to peer production practices. In other words, it is only now that we see the slow maturation of post-capitalist practices, which are slowly intermeshing, are forming the basis for a circulation of the common, and create a social basis for a future phase transition. What is happening is that commons-based peer production is that proto-modality, and that it is this modality which will be at the basis of future social and political revolutions. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: La fin du Persée?
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stefano Serafini <metafrasis(a)alice.it> Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM Subject: La fin du Persée? To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Cc: Paolo Masciocchi <paolomasciocchi(a)gmail.com>, bernard.dumont2(a)gmail.com, Stefano Borselli <il.covile(a)gmail.com> Dear Michel, It looks that an anti p2p action is going on: destroying Persée.fr What do you know about this affair? http://lapetition.be/en-ligne/petition-9491.html Best, Stefano -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] prince of networks and grid group theory
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

andy, response inline On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hiya, > > OK, so the individual in CS doesn't just relate to the community as an > undifferentiated whole, but the whole becomes something like a corporate > being separate from each of the contributors - as a result of which, one can > provide a gift to the whole, or receive something from it? I don't think that is the case actually, and this is what differentiate the commons from the state; the state aims 'in theory' to handle the collective, but is separated from that collective, and in the best of cases, use representational mechanisms; but in say digital commons, the whole exists for everyone (with access), without exclusion (at least for use); the commons should not be confused with the community and the community should not be confused with the 'infrastructure of cooperation' which may be managed by a democratic representative body. The real answer is that what you say 'can' happen, but is not a necessary feature, the whole can take on different configurations, some of which, as you say below, can be dangerous. In free cooperation commons, 'you must submit to the greater whole', simply does not exist, since your contribution, and your usage for that matter, are free. In physical commons of course, there are many different issues, yet decades of study show they work quite well under a variety of hybrid regimes. Don't know enough of the specifics of potlach to answer question, but it is quite possible that some of it may be CR, though it is generally classified as a gift dynamic ... It seems to me that, because of the essential hybridity of human relations and projects, things may have AND communal shareholding aspects AND gift aspects etc .. each relation to be examined specifically. However, I do believe that social systems can have a dominant core, but again, to be examined concretely, how to analyse LInux as a corporate dominated commons for example, what dominates, the commons aspects of the code, or the privatising aspects of the participating corporations, both are probably in tension with each other, Michel > Does the community have to be something like a Stirnerian spook for this to > work? I wonder, too, what the role of status is here: if Linus has status > because he contributes to the collective instead of to the individual > contributors, does this mean the collective outranks each of the > participants (i.e. the collective has a claim to gifts, whereas the > contributors do not)? If so, how does this fit with the apparent right to > appropriate from the collective? > > I'm trying to get my head round the implications, because communitarianism > has conservative and authoritarian implications, and often seems to carry > the implications, "individuals must submit to the greater whole" (which > functions like an external figure, very similar to "individuals must submit > to God" or "the king") and "individuals must NOT ask what the collective > will do for them" (need, demand, desire and entitlement figure as sins, and > human rights as outer frame restricting the collective's demands/acts is > rejected) - both typical of gemeinschaft. There's left and right versions > of this perspective, but they're pretty much invariant in how they construct > the collective-individual relation, and they're also invariant in their > social authoritarianism and borderline misanthropy. This doesn't seem to be > how you see CR working, and it doesn't seem to be how Open Source works in > practice (I've never got that authoritarian/misanthropic/anti-rights vibe > from Open Source, quite the opposite), but it sounds closer to CR than to > ER, AR or MP. Is this kind of thing CR? Maybe it's a fifth system, or some > kind of hybrid? > > Also, the fused-group or bund seems to function without reference to a > spook, forming immanently around rituals (it sometimes has an > object-reference which is also expressive). Fused-groups seem capable of > potlatch with collective elements, without the formation of a spook. Does > CR vary depending if its context is gemeinschaft, gesellschaft or bund? Or > is CR impossible in principle in the bund? (Maybe the moment of intense > experience IS the community in a bund?) > > Also, wouldn't some variants of potlatch also be gifts to the collective > (or to all members in an undifferentiated way), rather than to a specific > other person? I'm thinking of the mass-consumption event in which a > contribution of (say) food goes into the production of a feast which is > consumed by the entire band - an exceptionally high contributor gains > status, but the status comes from the common-pool contribution, not from > obligations to each specific person. Would this kind of potlatch be CR > rather than ER? > > bw > Andy > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> thanks for this genealogy!, would be nice to see this in an essay form one >> day <g> >> >> so the difference between CS and ER (gift economy), >> >> is that in CR, you have a general exchange with the whole, and indeed, you >> gain reputation by contributing the most, but there is no 'individual' >> expectation of any precise return to that whole, as long as enough >> individuals contribute enough to maintain the system going; in physical >> systems, this is regulated since the resource is scarce and needs >> replenishing; in 'immaterial systems', this is usually not so regulated >> (however any online CS system is predicated on a physical cooperation >> infrastructure which is predicated on scarcity rules and managed >> differentially from the online polarity) >> >> in the gift exchange you are exchanging between individuals, families, >> clans, tribes; in the case of potlach, the chief, representing a clan or >> tribe, 'gives' to the other tribe, thereby creating a clear debt to that >> other clan/tribe >> >> I don't see Linux as a gift chief giving to other clans/tribes, but rather >> as somebody seen as contributing the most to a particular commons, and thus, >> it's a CS and not a gift logic >> >> I think the psychology is different, i.e. Linux people would feel >> gratitude and respect to Linux for his contributions, and support him as a >> key asset, but would not feel to obligated to give back to the individual >> LInux as a competitive gift >> >> I see an ethical growth between authoritiy ranking, market pricing, gift >> economy, and communal shareholding, each one has a greater degree of >> gifting/sharing than the other; and therfore, I see CS dominance as part of >> an ethical growth ; of course, historically, the logic is rather CS / ER/ >> AR/ MP / CS >> >> This would mean a core of society governed by communal sharing, through >> commons for open knowledge, software and design; surrounded by a level of >> gift economy; surrounded by a level of market mechanisms; and finally >> surrounded by a level of hierarchical distribution, with the different >> levels in a level of 'subsidiarity' >> >> in other words, do whatever you can as communal shareholding (giving >> without direct expectation of return); if that doesn't work, what can work >> through gifting exchange (giving with indirect expectation of return), if >> that doesn't work, what can work through equivalent market exchange (giving >> with direct expectation of immediate return of same value), and if that >> doesn't work, what can work through some form of centrally decided >> allocation/distribution (centrally regulated obligated giving/receiving) >> >> This is the 'ethical' logic, I see, though in practice, a centrally >> allocated basic income, may actually be necessary for CS to work in a >> sustainable manner in the first place, >> >> Michel >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> Well, the way you're talking about communal sharing reminds me a lot of >>> the fused-group in Sartre, its descendant the subject-group in Guattari, and >>> its close relative the bund/band/sect in Peterson, which is traced back to >>> Toennies. Communal ownership has been theorised by people like Owen J. >>> Lynch as underpinning traditional land-use rights in relation to CBNRM, >>> although i think it's being stretched a bit. There's other precedents in >>> anarcho-mutualism and utopian socialism (Fourier, Morris). Fourier's idea >>> of 'harmonisation' is intriguing, basically turning all problems of need >>> into common problems and seeking to solve them by systemic rearrangements >>> which turn problems into assets. Illich talks about certain >>> tools/technologies as 'convivial', implying something like CR, in various >>> works including Deschooling Society and Tools for Conviviality: something >>> like the phone system and the postal system would be a convivial tool >>> (roughly speaking, use-neutral and user-led), whereas the road system and >>> the school system would not be (because it imposes particular uses, has a >>> scarcity structure and is oriented to individualised/competitive use). He >>> talks about using low-tech alternatives, such as 2-way radios and >>> audiocassette networks instead of TV and radio, and electronic mules instead >>> of cars, as appropriate technologies in the South, in similar terms; ditto >>> his 'learning webs' as alternatives to school. His work actually reads >>> nowadays as proto-internet. Something else to look at might be >>> autoreduction, the idea of making services (public transport, electricity, >>> etc) free/common by refusing to pay, which emerged in Italy from autonomia: >>> http://libcom.org/history/autoreduction-movements-turin-1974 >>> >>> I can see why you'd make the move from gift economy to CR. But how would >>> this fit with the authority/status which accrues to people like Linus >>> Torvalds and Assange? This would fit very well with gift economy (the >>> cyber-chief accumulates status by means of disproportionately large >>> contributions, as in potlatch, Big Man systems etc) and not so well with CR >>> (why would contributions be recognised if contributions count as if from a >>> single body?) >>> >>> bw >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> >>>> thanks a lot for this, >>>> >>>> defining all the characteristics of p2p would take some time, >>>> >>>> but in a nutshell, from >>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske >>>> >>>> Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad >>>> or group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social >>>> domain in question. Examples are people using a commons (CS with respect to >>>> utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with >>>> respect to their social selves), people who "ask not for whom the bell >>>> tolls, for it tolls for thee" (CS with respect to shared suffering and >>>> common well-being), or people who kill any member of an enemy group >>>> indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective >>>> responsibility). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm starting to list the essential concepts here as well: >>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Companion_Concepts >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hiya, >>>>> >>>>> Actor-network theory (ANT) which Latour is associated with, views >>>>> everything which exists (people, animals, objects) as 'actors', these actors >>>>> as arranged more-or-less horizontally in networks, and seeks to analyse the >>>>> composition of particular networks (e.g. science as an interaction of >>>>> scientists with one another, with their equipment, with whatever they're >>>>> studying, etc). It's a bit different from peer-to-peer in that, while it's >>>>> an anti-authoritarian view, it doesn't really distinguish horizontal and >>>>> vertical organisations, and the actors can co-constitute in different ways - >>>>> in a sense, peer-to-peer would lose its specificity when everyone and >>>>> everything is a peer. Also, it would imply that something like open-source >>>>> programming is not simply a network of programmers, or even programmers and >>>>> users, but also of computers, peripherals, bits of code and so on, which are >>>>> all actors in their own right. It's certainly similar to peer-to-peer >>>>> approaches but it would be hard to unpack its influence from other >>>>> horizontalist theories, e.g. Deleuze and Situationism, which precede it by a >>>>> long way (ANT really took off in the 80s, horizontalism has been around >>>>> since the 60s), and contempotaries such as Hakim Bey. If I was tracing a >>>>> genealogy for peer-to-peer ideas it would probably go from Situationism to >>>>> culture-jamming (things like subvertising, subway graffiti, street theatre), >>>>> to DIY activism in the techno field (such as phone phreaking, rave and >>>>> pirate radio), to early hacker culture, to peer-to-peer, but I might be >>>>> wrong. (Also, weren't some of the early hacktivists rather >>>>> techno-progressivist? This would sit badly with perspectives such as ANT). >>>>> ANT is mostly used in Science and Technology Studies, but has become a >>>>> significant force in sociology too. Certainly worth reading up on if you're >>>>> interested in networks more broadly than in the computer setting. I think >>>>> Latour has written his own introduction to ANT as well. Latour declares his >>>>> own inspiration to be Gabriel Tarde, who would arguably be a further >>>>> 'original' a long time before - though I think some variety of peer-to-peer >>>>> production has been around since time immemorial. >>>>> >>>>> What would you take to be the defining characteristics/ideas of p2p? I >>>>> can probably tell you when they first popped-up in theory. >>>>> >>>>> bw >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>>> >>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0