It is stupid to make Facebook understand what is wrong with Facebook but it is okay if you take the understanding with you when fleeing

“We are so sorry that you decided to deactivate your account. Please take a moment to write why you have chosen to leave, so we can do our best to make our services better.

“First, Facebook is now the largest database for information about people that have ever existed, but it does not allow me to see and copy my entire social diagram. I want to participate in a social network where the fruits of my clicking and connecting comes back to me, if at all. Second, Facebook is a proprietary business, which means that all the value we create as users end up somewhere else. I want to participate in a not-for-profit social network where profits goes back into the network to develop new stuff we ourselves decide, take out the commercials or stop selling our social diagrammes to corporations. Third, Facebook keeps surveilling me, and let states and corporations do it too for a price, even if I don’t want to be surveilled. Fourth, Facebook is an infrastructure that is not copy friendly, and leaves no room for collective building and restructruring – only at the mercy of your developers, only by way of pathetic protesting, in Facebook groups. Fifth, Facebook keeps my data even if I don’t want it to, even if I delete my account. Sixth, Facebook is a closed system on the internet, where every user cannot decide which other nodes – including on the outside of the Facebook wall – we want to connect to. For all these and other reasons, Facebook is a danger to the internet as I see it now. That’s why I want to quit, at least for now, to learn how more people could also quit. See you again, or never (depends if we succeed).”

The ambivalence of affirmative action

It is true that affirmative action leaves a lot to be desired. Ideally we would be able to live with different kind of personalities, sexualities, skin colors, cultures and bodies. Ideally we would also ourselves change at every encounter with someone different than ourselves. (This post will definately not propose some kind of multiculturalist perspective in the sense that people should be the way “they are”, as if people just “are” in one way and somehow never changes, and as if then we should at all costs live separately to never encounter each other. I will definately not preach “tolerance”, which is something hosts do to a guest in their own house).

Ideally we would not need affirmative action. But, we do not live in an ideal world. In this very real world, white heterosexual males already get affirmative action on the informal level. It is institutionalized not in the governmental sense but in the sociological sense. It is informal privilege and if you’ve had it all your live, it is often very difficult to see. (For a reference, read this short text: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack (PDF). It is about white privileges, but could be translated to any of those relations of domination mentioned. Remember, things do not need to be identical to compare them. In fact, it would be pointless to compare them, if they were identical, it is precisely because they are different (but similar) that you can compare them. Now use your empathy and read a very good text, it might just learn you something of your white privileges too).

The thing is, when you do not live in an ideal world, you need to get your hands dirty. You will have to give privilege to the underprivileged. You will have to take privilege away from the privileged, when those privileges dominate or lessen the powers of the underprivileged. There are real zero-sum games in this world. Some of them end up having disastrous consequences. You can be a good ally (whether white, heterosexual or male) and start getting a sense of your subtle domination or help dismantle your own privileges.

But, as have been pointed out, this leaves much to be desired. I believe it is a kind of revolutionary desire that most of us have. This desire need to go hand-in-hand with our dirty hands and it is the desire of liberation of not all differences between people, but “all difference that makes a difference”.

I believe this is what Malcolm X learnt, when he was first a racist, speaking for the liberation of all blacks and the constitution of a black nation (black nationalism, black separatism). I believe he later toned down the nationalist aspect and acknowledged white allies that wanted to help, to desire the liberation from being black. The point is, that these things should go hand in hand: the liberation as what we are, and at the same time liberation from what we are. While we stand up against opression, we flee into new worlds at the same time.

I think in the context of homosexuality, the one part is traditionally done by gay rights movements and the other part is more recently seen in queer/trans politics. Queers does not want to just be “gay” and happy for their new won liberal rights. They want to abolish the need for an either-or heterosexual-homosexual “choice” altogether and become multiple other things desiring many other things. If you would want to give liberal rights to every single queer label that is out there, you would need a gazillion new rights. It would become pointless.

These two angles are never separate and should always go together at the same time, in the same political actions and the same discussions: Liberation of + liberation from.

Privileged persons often just stress the latter part (e.g. white people stressing liberation from race, “we should all just be equal” or “we should not focus on the colour of people’s skin” or “this is just inverted racism” etc.). This is because the latter part does not threaten their privileges. The latter part, liberation from, does not entail that they would lose their white privileges. But they have many of their privileges precisely because other people do not have them (e.g. get in front of the line). The same goes for heterosexuality.

Privileged people therefore often become either colour-blind, gender-blind or forced ignorant of people’s sexual desires (because, “we should all just be the same”)

Again, this is a very privileged stand point.

We do not live in an ideal world, therefore we should not become blind of “the differences that makes a difference”: colour, gender, sexual desire, different kinds of bodies etc.

Also, most people are already and always becoming something else than they are (becoming “black” by living in a black neighbourhood, becoming “trans” by learning gender crossing behavior, becoming “bisexual” by flirting with someone of your own gender or whatever you may become). It matters too how people are becoming something and influences how you should meet and treat that specific person.

Again, it is not the differences that are the problem, but how we treat differences. In fact, differences, or the fact that we can become multiple other things, are very desirable because it gives people the freedom of determination over their bodies. If you do not agree that difference is something good, just witness the multiplicities of queer. In queer, the abolition of heteronormativity does not mean that everything just becomes a grey blur “where everyone is the same”. Rather, it means a rainbow-coloured explosion of subjectivity, because “everyone is equal”. Sameness does not follow equality, it is the other way around: inequality between differences learns people that you should try to become the same as the privileged ones. Hierarchies makes you want to race to the top, where the ideal type resides. It makes everyone desire the same things. The revolutionary desires of queer makes you want to desire many things and become many things, because there is not a top to race to, like running everyone’s running to the great sexual pyramid of heteronormativity, but rather a horizontal plane of a multitude of desires with many rainbows and many treasures at the ground level.

Now we’re at it! Here’s some inspiration for tonight, well beyond affirmative action. These guys workin’ it ;)

(This text appeared in a different context in a less open discussion, but I thought I would repost it here as a standalone post)

Internet terminology

Ever wondered what an “IP number” actually is? Lately I have.

Trying to educate myself in internet common knowledge, for the purposes of cryptoanarchist / cryptocommunist training, I got increasingly frustrated with the catch-22‘s of Wikipedia and similar sources, that tried to explain concepts like “Router”, “IP number” and “DNS”: Seemingly, you needed to know at least 10-15 important terms to learn even the first and most basic ones.

The site Webopedia proved a much better encyclopaedia, but I still feel like I needed something more pedagogic, even visual learning which suits abstract systems like the internet well, and so I searched and found some great videos that explains basic concepts of how the internet works. See below and enjoy! Leave a comment if you know of any other good videos, graphics or resources, and I’ll update this blog with it!

DNS Explained

An explanation of where web sites on the internet come from, how a name address gets translated into the unique IP number through DNS (Domain Name System).

CONCEPTS: DNS, IP addresses, Root domain, Name servers, Cache, Root

Warriors of the Net

Apparently, this is cult classic. Gotta’ love the late 90’s graphics and the awe-inspired voice-over reaching a poetic climax in the end: “Pleased with their efforts / and trusting in a better world / our trusted data packets ride of blissfully into the sunset / of another day / knowing fully they have served their master’s well.”

CONCEPTS: IP, LAN (Local Area Network), Router, Router Switch, Firewall, Proxy, TCP Packet, ICMP Ping Packet, UDP Packet, “Ping of Death”

History of the Internet

“History of the internet” is an animated documentary explaining the inventions from time-sharing to file sharing, from Arpanet to Internet, during the cold war. E.g. how the cuba crisis turned the centralized networks of the US military Arpanet into decentralized networks and the radio waves into distributed direct waves, The story of french Cyclades explains how the term ‘inter-net’ was born,

CONCEPTS: Batch-processing, time-sharing, ARPANET, mainframe, IMP (internet message processor), NCP (network control protocol), TCP (transmission control protocol), Packet Switching, X25 protocol, OSI (Open System Interconnection) protocol, TCP/IP protocol

Exploiting rule-based interaction

Hacking involves knowing how humans sometimes work as procedural machines, acting by pre-defined rules that can easily be exploited. All it takes, is to know the entire set of pre-defined rules, and then picking the most suitable course of “interaction”. This of course works when dealing with all kinds of companies, from fast food restaurants to public transportation. It is especially true in hierarchical companies that micro-manage their employees, so the rule-based procedures completely the interaction. Another example are the procedures for when and in which cases an employee must bring their supervisor. Or leave you alone (so you don’t have to be bothered by their selling tricks on the phone). Or wait for you, and with you never coming back to them, waste their time (which make the company lose money).

Commoniser moved / flyttede / flyttade

UPDATE: Förlåt! Fortfarande lite rörigt här nu och då. Sidan är under development. I’m developing..

Welcome, velkommen, välkommen in. Commoniser got a new domain, and with a new form! Mere öppett domæne & med det kommer vår, introducing/presenting, Die form: flashy-orange-sans-serif-modernistisk schweitzer æstetik. Lär mig att koda wordpress i php/css, cutting edge. Känner mig som en hacker. Deform

Die Form – Re-search

[audio:|titles=01 Re-search]