[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> nettime-bold.

[<stalder@fis.utoronto.ca>]

fran ilich <ilich_030@hotmail.com> wrote:

> and after the <nettime> 1800 nettimers post, i have to question what is the
> sense of maintaning such a list, if its clear that no one is reading it (ok, 25,
> but 1783 dont), plus the bold is an authentic spam factory where you receive
> everything from porno ads, fraud-mails, to spells and incantations. it is clear
> that nettime readers want an edited version (the reason why moderators have to
> work around the clock), and if nettime-bold was the version for the masses who
> wanted to have it all, then the masses are 25, sorry, 24 (im unsubscribing
> soon).

The value of nettime-bold, in my personal opinion, is not only measured in 
the number of subscribers but also by the fact that it provides transparency 
in regard to the work of the moderators: by comparing the two feeds, one 
can easily see what the moderators actually do. 

In a way,  records kept in a public archive play a similar role. It doesn`t 
matter how many people actually go an read these records, that fact that 
they are public makes a huge difference in and off itself because it provides 
the possibility of an instant audit.

Perhaps even more important is the fact the nettime-bold provides anyone 
sufficiently interested with the possibility of doing an alternative moderation 
(ie. one only focussing on net.art, US relevant posts, whatever). The 
cypherpunks lists used to work that way. There was an unmoderated feed 
of truly gigantic proportions and several people provided various filtered 
version for special interest audiences.

Best. Felix





+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Les faits sont faits.
http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/~stalder



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold