Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law throughout the Philippines on 21 September 1972, thirty-three years ago today. I was a high school freshman then and did not understand fully the significance of Martial Law. I was to become a “Martial Law Baby.”
from bramilo.weblogs.com
In discussions about the development of a national CCD web site, I’ve advocated for using open source software as the preferred development platform. There are several reasons why I believe open source is the appropriate model for developing a CCD web site, including cost-effectivity — open source software is usually free.
The main reason I advocate open source, however, is that I recognise an affinity between the philosophies — and some practices — between CCD and the open source movement. The following quotation provides a good explanation of what open source is; while it talks about Linux (which is probably the premiere open source “killer application”), it applies broadly to the open source movement:
Linux has evolved, and continues to evolve, under the open source philosophy of the free sharing of ideas. If not for this massive, shared, open community environment, Linux — and much of the open source software that runs the Internet — wouldn’t be here. It’s a testament to this community and its philosophy that the creation of a powerful operating system such as Linux could have come about through the interaction and cooperation of thousands of people worldwide.
Linux is a symbol of what’s possible when we work together as a whole, sharing each other’s ideas and building upon each other’s work. It’s built by everybody, for everybody, and it’s free.
…
The quintessential guide to working within an open source project … is Eric S. Raymond’s “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” It is available both as a hardcover book and free online from www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar .
- from “The Advanced Linux Pocketbook,” edited by Ashton Mills, published by ACP Tech, Sydney, 2001.
The significance of open source to CCD goes beyond the building of the national CCD web site. Open source software has been used by many community-based organisations (as well as government and commercial organisations) over the years. Many open source applications perform as well, if not better, than proprietary and non-free applications — community-based organisations or movements (like CCD) can obviously benefit from using free and stable applications.
Using free applications also increases the chance of getting more individuals and communities online/switched on cheaply and legally — like it or not, software piracy is rampant in all sectors, and as much open source software is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) scheme, users need not use pirated or expensive commercial applications. Under the GNU GPL scheme, apllications can be freely installed and distributed (with some conditions). More information on the GNU GPL is at www.gnu.org .
There is also the benefit of world-wide, community-driven support for open source software. Many of these applications where developed collaboratively by programmers, testers, documentors, and other supporters, sometimes involving dozens (or thousands, in the case of Linux) of volunteers working to solve problems and improve performance. There is, therefore, wider support from developers for many popular applications, often at no cost to users.
Using open source software, or being part of the open source movement, is a crucial way of contributing to the bridging of the “Digital Divide,” of democratising new technologies. For an excellent article on the Digital Divide, see Bridging the Organizational Divide: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to the Digital Divide, PolicyLink, September 2001 and other articles at Policy Link: Digital Divide (many thanks to Gareth Wreford at Australia Council for putting me onto this mob).
There are more advantages to open source that I’ll discuss in a future article. There are also, of course, like with anything else, disadvantages to using open source software and I will discuss those too in a future article.
from bramilo.weblogs.com
Note: This article is my second assignment for Net503: A Socio-technological Introduction to the Internet (part of the Internet Studies Program, Curtin University). I reproduce it here in all its imperfection (I didn’t get high marks for this one) as notes on the topic rather than polished piece.
Emerging Internet technologies foster new means of interaction through three “revolutions” described by Kitchin: they challenge traditional ideas concerning mass communication and the form of communication; help radically transform space-time relations and create new social spaces; and lead to a rethinking of concepts such as reality and nature. These cyberspatial challenges have brought about “new voices, new spaces, new categories” in the social, cultural, political, and economic realms, engendering means of interaction previously not possible (Kitchin 1998: 12).
There are a number of manifestations of emerging new means of interactions; these include: challenges to the traditional notions of identity and community; prospects for computer-mediated direct democracy and online political activity, and transformations in Internet-based political activity; the ascendancy of the Information Economy, Internet-facilitated globalisation of trade, and restructuring of economic organizations and employment effected by cyberspatial technologies. Below I discuss aspects of some changes fostered by Internet technologies, citing Kitchin’s comments but also drawing on other experiences, including my own.
Socio-cultural aspects
Cyberspatial technologies challenge traditional notions of identity and community by allowing if not encouraging self-construction and multiplicity of identities online, and by “providing new social spaces of interchange and cultural transmission.” (Kitchin 1998: 74).
Cyberspace provides a relatively high degree of anonymity for users of its technologies, especially in text-dominant virtual environments such as usenet groups, chat rooms, and MUDs and MOOs. Users are known and judged by their words principally, and their looks and accents matter little in such environments. Some users, facilitated by anonymity and the disembodied nature of cyberspaces, also do gender bending and role-playing. Identity in cyberspace can thus be “fluid, ephemeral and empowering because people can choose how they are represented. Users literally become the authors of their lives” (Kitchin 1998: 81).
Internet technologies, particularly chat applications, allow multiple interchanges to occur simultaneously – in Internet Relay Chat or Instant Messaging systems (e.g. ICQ) a user can have more than one conversation with different parties all at the same time – thus providing a “multitasking” platform for communication, perhaps even allowing multiple identities to take over separate simultaneous exchanges. While this can be simulated offline, as in having conversations on different topics with different people in a group or over two or more telephones, the effect is disconcerting or off-putting to other parties – the time lag and disembodiment in text-based online chatting environments is actually conducive to multiple engagements.
With the advent and growing popularity of audio and video modes of communication through applications such as Netmeeting, visit, ICQ, Yahoo! Chat and others, part of the anonymity and mystique of online communication is diminished – as faces, accents, and genders are obvious in audio-video encounters, playing with identities becomes more limited, and online communication perhaps becomes a simulation of traditional face-to-face communication.
Online or virtual communities can be considered as old as the Internet, depending on which definition of community is adopted. If it is accepted that communities can be formed on the bases of “interests and affinity, rather than the coincidence of locality” (Rheingold in Kitchin, 1998: 86) then usenet groups, mailing lists, chat rooms, can be considered communities. Kitchin cites views that “cyberspace allows the formation of ‘virtual (on-line) communities’ that are free of the constraints of place and based upon new modes of interaction and new forms of social relationships” (Kitchin 1998: 86).
Online communities are communities that are indeed based on interests and affinities, that are not place-based or time-zone bound – thus demonstrating one manifestation of cyberspatial challenge to notions of time-space – and that, for some such as Rheingold, can foster genuine community values that are disappearing from “real” or place-based communities; he envisions a “’global civil society’ with a shared consciousness: community will no longer be local but global” (in Kitchin 1998: 87).
Amy Jo Kim, author of Community building on the web, describes community as “a group of people with a shared interest, purpose, or goal, who get to know each other over time” (Kim 2000: 28). For her, the key part of her definition of community is the getting to know each other over time; toward this end, she espouses “nine timeless design strategies that characterize successful, sustainable communities” (Kim 2000: xiii). Part of the strategies is setting up “gathering places” for online communities using a variety of Internet technologies such as mailing lists, message boards, web sites, chat rooms, etc. I must also emphasise that community building for Kim is not only useful for altruistic or utopian reasons; she worked on commercial web sites’ community building programs (eg. AOL) too, anticipating the popularity of community building as a customer relations strategy that is evident today.
There are those, on the other hand, that don’t recognize online communities as “real communities.” In fact, Kitchin devotes much space in Cyberspace (Chapter 4) to criticisms of online communities. Once such critic is Sardar, who claims “communities are shaped … not by joining a group of people with common interests” and that “a cyber community is self-selecting, exactly what a real community is not.” Sardar’s position stems from his preferred construction of community – “shaped by a sense of belonging to a place, a geographical location, by shared values, by common struggles, by tradition and history of location — and because cyber communities do not fit his definition, cyber communities are therefore not real communities (Sardar in Kitchin, 1998: 88).
Whether online communities are real communities or not will be debated for a long time; the notion of “community” itself is being debated offline and will be debated for years to come. What is relevant to me, however, is that the Internet in fact allows groups of people separated by geographic space and time zones and other constraints – constraints that would normally disallow sustained interaction among them – are able to overcome these constraints to interact with relatively little expense, almost instantaneously, on shared (or a community of) interests. Bringing people to interact in such a fashion is not possible without Internet technologies.
Political aspects
Kitchin states “commentators are nearly all universally agreed that cyberspatial technologies have wide-scale implications for politics and polity. In one form or another, they are set to transform political structures and organizations, political campaigning, lobbying strategies, and voting patterns.” He identifies two possible cyberspatially-facilitated political developments predicted by some commentators: direct government could potentially replace representative government, and, the role of place-based political mobilization will rapidly diminish. (Kitchin 1998: 100-101).
Kitchin doubts, however, if these predicted big changes – direct democracy, non place-based political processes – will ever transpire. In relation to direct government, he states that “direct government as a concept is impractical and unlikely to work. Government is an extremely complicated system requiring complex systems of consultation, debate and understanding. In practice, most people will not want to understand these debates and partake in the political process, replacing elected, representative figures.” In relation to the diminishing relevance of place, he states: “people offline still have to live in the local, and will continue to be represented by the current democratic systems based within discrete geographical units.” (1998: 125). He also questions the supposed effect of the Internet as a “political modifier” because of its popular information dissemination capacity, stating that the Internet is just another source of information and a new way to send an opinion, and that most of the information on the net is trivial anyway (Kitchin 1998: 126)
Regardless of Kitchin’s (and others’) doubts about “political futures” of Internet technologies, I see invaluable advantages of these technologies to the political work and development of some sectors and for some purposes. Kitchin’s discussion, I feel, is about possibilities for mainstream and very big political changes; not all political work and change needs to be at such a universal level, and small changes are what bigger chances can build on.
So while other aspects of politics and polity are discussed by Kitchin (e.g. ownership, access, deviancy, etc.), I would like to discuss further the effect of Internet technologies on the transformation of political activity (albeit not necessarily at a big, mainstream, universal level) specifically in relation to the issue of virtual communities discussed in the previous section.
The Internet has certainly changed the way some political organizations are structured and how they work. Political organizations that are also based on communities (place-based and otherwise) use the Internet for communication, collaboration, and decision-making to great effect. They also make good use of the unique characteristic of the Internet as a non-broadcasting and interactive communication mode so that “propaganda” is not disseminated one-way but there are more opportunities for dialogue on political issues.
One personal experience I have of how issues of community and politics intersect online is my involvement with an international online community of Filipino activists and expatriates campaigning for Absentee Voting Rights for overseas Filipinos. One of the main affiliates of this movement is elagda, (http://www.elagda.org), or roughly translated to English, e-signature. elagda was formed during the political crises in the Philippines in early 2001 to coordinate Filipino expatriate involvement in the campaign to oust former President Estrada. After Estrada’s ouster, it shifted attention to absentee voting rights.
Elagda members and affiliate organizations are spread worldwide. They have circulated a common email petition directed at members of the Philippine Congress and Senate, they coordinate lobbying activities and suggest amendments to the Senate bill via email, they run numerous mailing lists on different interests, and they have chats (using Yahoo Messenger) every Monday and Thursday to assess and plan the campaign. They also have subcommittees working on specific concerns, one of which is researching e-voting technologies (one of the members’ research has turned up an Australian site about evoting: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jjjacq/evote/en/evote_en.html).
I am sure there are other possibly more exciting examples of how cyberspatial technologies have provided new means of interaction for communities engaged in political activity. The breadth, scale, and speed of such political activity will not be possible without the Internet.
Economic aspects
Kitchin observes that Internet technologies have ushered in the “information economy,” where “processes of production, consumption and management are becoming increasingly reliant on ‘knowledge generation, information exchanges and information handling’” and where information is digital-based, managed through telematic infrastructures controlled by transnational corporations (Kitchin 1998: 130-131). Trends that signal the emergence and growing domination of the information economy are: globalisation of trade; office automation and back-offices; teleworking (and telecottages, teleports); and, gaining competitive advantage (Kitchin 1998. 135-143).
Changes brought about by the ascendancy of the information economy are: 1) organizational and employment restructuring, with corporate downsizing and polarization of the workforce between a core of highly-skilled information workers and the bulk consisting of unskilled and temporary labour, with the disappearance of middle-level management; 2) urban-regional restructuring, with the continued dominance of metropolitan areas with a concentration of telematic infrastructures, with some operations decentralized to peripheral areas to avail of lower rent, less transient labour force, etc.; and, 3) the emergence of soft- or cyber-cities, “whose infrastructure is increasingly becoming composed of cyberspatial connections and whose existing infrastructure is increasingly being monitored and controlled by computer networks,” in order to benefit from the globalisation of trade and to gain competitive advantage over other cities (Kitchin 1998: 144-157).
The information economy, or “new economy” as it is also referred to, has in fact transformed economic processes and structures, often to the disadvantage of the majority of economic stakeholders (i.e. workers and consumers). Kitchin’s asserts that cyberspatial technologies have been adopted “because they increase corporate profits by increasing productivity while reducing costs,” that changes brought by the information economy have “led to widening social and spatial divisions,” and that “transnational companies are run to make profits, not to make an egalitarian society”(Kitchin 1998: 160).
A particular aspect of the information economy was the emergence of businesses whose business was mainly information, and which existed principally in cyberspace (hence the term dot com). Many of these companies were financed by venture capitalists and some did not even have solid business models. Many of the smaller dot coms went out of business in the crash, including a high profile Australian company such as Spike. Out of that experience, some lessons have been identified, including: companies with longer bricks-and-mortar experience and who leveraged this experience, had a better chance in the new economy. A preferred approach then is the
clicks-and-bricks one, where offline and online strategies are both developed and pursued as part of a business model. One personal experience I’ve had with the changes in the new economy since the crash is that many dot coms that used to offer free services on the web have either folded or now charge for the services.
At any rate, while a lot of dot comers are licking their wounds, not everyone has given upon the new economy; some are looking at it more realistically. Michael Bloomberg, for instance, suggests that “I don’t think there is a new economy. I think there are new tools for the economy.” (Fast Company, March 2001, p.92)
New Forms, New Substance?
While the Internet has provided new and unique means of interaction, these cyberspatial technologies do not necessarily transform social relations substantially or fundamentally.
Kitchin says, “cyberspaces do offer new forms of communication and are new spaces of interaction but they are embodied spaces that are essentially extensions of real-world spaces, governed by the same cultural ideologies. Cyberspaces supplement rather than replace real-world activities.” (Kitchin 1998: 170)
So, while the Internet, on one hand, offers more than simulations of traditional forms of interaction, it is basically a simulation (an extension?) of traditional, real life.
References
Rob Kitchin, Cyberspace: The World in the Wires, John Wiley and Sons, England 1998.
Amy Jo Kim, Community Building on the Web, Peachpit Press, California 2000.
Fast Company, March 2001.
Christian Ramilo
Student Number 12292420
from bramilo.weblogs.com
Note: This piece was originally written as an assignment for Net503 (A socio-technological introduction to the Internet), a subject I am doing at Curtin University as part of my Fellowship.
The Internet may be the most significant technological development in the late twentieth century. It affects everyone directly or indirectly. It promises (or threatens) to overtake how we continue to live our lives.
Cyberspace is, however, perhaps the most over-hyped technological development of our time, which prevents a good understanding of its socio-technological impact (p. iv). In the face of such unprecedented hype, Kitchin and like-minded analysts call for a critical look at cyberspatial technologies and their social implications.
Kitchin* demonstrates that there are several socio-technological theoretical perspectives that seek to make sense of cyberspace. He calls for a combination of perspectives, a new approach, to accommodate the complexities of Cyberspace. While I agree with Kitchin on the need for a new approach, I wish to focus on some aspects of the impact of technology, the Internet specifically, on social transformation.
By social transformation I mean basic changes in social and power structures, in how social forces collide to push society (and technology) onward. These collisions are often categorised by the left as contradictions or dualisms based on class, gender, ethnicity, and ecology (i.e the contradiction between humankind and nature). These basic contradictions are also expressed as the dynamic between centre and periphery, mainstream and alternative, dominant and emergent, old and new, even oppressor and oppressed.
Given this focus, I support Robins’s view (cited by Kitchin, p. 22) as the most useful framework to deal with the relationship of technology and social transformation. Robins argues that “cyberspace is not a fundamentally different world. Rather it overlies real space in a symbiotic relationship” and that “changes cyberspace is predicted to bring about must be placed within the broader context of the social and political upheaval that is taking place in the world today.”
Kitchin, again citing Robins, reminds us that “cyberspatial technologies are the children of military-funded inventions, and it will be business and industry that will nurture future developments and seek to protect the rewards.” (p. 22)
The Internet traces its origins to the development of computers during the Second World War, for the purpose solving military problems. The further development of computer and networking technology was fueled by desires to maintain strategic advantage, particularly for the USA and the West, during the Cold War and the Space Race era.
Academic needs also played a significant part in expanding the Internet. While it may be argued that this was a neutral use of technology (by virtue of notions of academic freedom and pure scientific pursuit), it must be considered that computing and networking facilities for the academic community were also funded by corporations such as IBM.
The computing and hobbyist communities also contributed to the growth of the Internet through BBSs, Usenet, and other popular applications. Today the majority of Internet users are private individuals who may or may not believe in the military-capitalist agendas but who, because of the almost-total commercialisation of the Internet, are more like cyberproletarians and cyberconsumers of the global new economy.
The Internet also assisted in widening the gap between haves and have-nots. Much of the infrastructure is in developed countries and dominated by big business interests. Most of the world’s people do not have access to the Internet. Even in an industrialised country such as Australia, only a third of households are connected to the Internet, demonstrating a digital divide – two-thirds of the Australian population then are potentially at a disadvantage in the information economy.
The Internet then, like other technologies, is governed by questions of ownership, distribution, access, equity, control, power. It can be considered, in old-fashioned political-economic terms, a means of production that is owned and controlled by elite, minority social interests. The Internet is a mainstream technology, largely owned and controlled by mainstream interests.
But like other mainstream technologies or instruments (e.g. the electoral system), the Internet provides some latitude for popular and democratic participation, if only to keep the masses entertained while subjugated. It is within this latitude – or “democratic space” — that alternative agendas abound and where (real and virtual) struggles for social transformation can and do happen.
Cyberspace can be a stage — and cyberspatial technologies the tools — for social and political upheaval, particularly through the actions of increasingly disenchanted cyberproletarians and cyberconsumers. To borrow from the social constructivists, there are indeed “micro-level social processes of human agency” that are “shaping and reappropriating cyberspace” to perhaps eventually change the nature and structures of cyberspace and real space.
Within the democracy of the Internet exist a myriad of expressions of discontent, protest, as well as alternative visions. There are many websites, discussion groups, and email/Usenet lists on every imaginable issue or social cause. The Resistant Media movement, where multimedia and cyberspatial technologies are repurposed to be critical of social ills (real and virtual) is a growing area of digital media activity.
The Internet has also become a propaganda battlefield, exemplified by competing web sites during the Balkan wars and mutual attacks on web sites by Israeli and Palestinian webwarriors in recent Middle East conflicts. Another militant variety of cyberactivism is Floodnet, where Zapatistas and their supporters attacked web sites allied to the Mexican government in protest.
Internet.au (March 2001) warns of the rise of cyberterrorism around the world. Direct attacks on cyberspatial infrastructure are not uncommon as demonstrated by what could be purely anti-social actions by the authors of the Melissa and I Love You viruses, and the Denial of Service attacks on Amazon and Yahoo last year. But the relative ease with which the whole Internet was disrupted by a few persons may encourage more techno-sabotage in future (probably serving anti-social as well as pro-social motivations).
These examples of critical, alternative, and activist uses of the Internet are by no means dominant. But as disenchantment with the real (and virtual) worlds grows, so will the critical and alternative elements — or the shaping and reappropriation — of cyberspace grow.
If the resistant and critical and socially-transformative potential of the Internet can be assumed, the question is how that potential can be realised and maximised. The majority of the world’s population now cannot participate in cyberspatial social transformation movements because they have no access. Would it be a good goal then to accelerate the democratisation of cyberspatial technologies – somewhat akin to arming the population in traditional revolutionary terms — to allow for the most, if not universal, participation in cyberspatial “revolution”?
Cyberspatial technologies will indeed transform society in ways that Kitchin describes, particularly trough the “three revolutions.” What intrigues me are possibilities for democratising social participation in the further development of Cyberspace, in a way perhaps that accommodates other more directly socially transformative revolutionary processes.
————————
*Rob Kitchin, Cyberspace: The World in the Wires, John Wiley & Sons, England, 1998. This is the main reference for this piece.
from bramilo.weblogs.com
Note: This piece is based on a posting I made to the Net503 (A socio-technological introduction to the Internet) discussion group at Curtin Uni, where I am enrolled as part of my Fellowship. The piece was a response to the discussion question: What social, political, economic and cultural characteristics of the Internet today can be traced back to the way that the technologies of the Internet have been developed and pioneered historically?
I am particularly interested in the community (non-government, non-commercial) aspects of the Internet, which Kitchin* recognises as one of the key historical factors for the nature of the Internet today. While the Internet was developed initially for military, government, and scientific uses, then for commercial purposes, it was the emergence and growth of BBSs, Usenet, email, and MUDs that brought millions of users to the Internet. I think most Internet users these days use it for all sorts of pursuits, including personal communication, entertainment, community-building, and other non-government, non-military, non-commercial purposes.
I used BBSs in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. It was all text-based, very DOS-centric, slow, and dial-in numbers were always busy. I like it anyway because it was a local phone call away (although I did log on to interstate and overseas BBSs a few times) and I didn’t have to pay for online time like you do with ISPs these days. Even when the Internet and the Web were dominant, I saw value in BBSs because of their simplicity, accessibility, and in some cases their tighter security. BBSs, however, are almost gone. I was also very interested in Kitchin’s account of freenets and other public networks; I am not aware if there were similar networks in Australia in the past or currently.
While it is true that commercial interests have dominated the Internet, those that seek to keep it public and open are challenging this situation. One of the most popular and recent developments on the Internet, for example, are Peer-to-Peer (P2P) technologies exemplified by Napster, which has been almost driven out of business by commercial music interests. P2P promises, among other things, to revolutionise searching for and sharing relevant information (including but not limited to MP3s) yet sound business models for it have yet to be found (Red Herring, December 2000).
A computer in every home?
I would like to see popular (or public, open, democratic) usage of the Internet grow, and for non-commercial and non-government/non-military uses to develop alongside other uses. There are, however, many issues to do with this area of Internet development, including issues of access and equity. As has been pointed out, the Internet is American- or “western-” dominated, English is the dominant language, and most of the world’s population is not connected.
Assuming that widespread and democratic access to the Internet is a good thing (putting aside debates on pollution, RSI, social dysfunction, etc.), there is the issue of how Internet access and usage can be democratised to the maximum. Do we assume that to achieve widespread virtual activity that everyone or every household must have a computer? If so, then it will take time. Only a third of Australian households, for instance, are connected to the Internet. Access to it from remote areas is more difficult and expensive. The situation in other less developed countries in terms of connectedness (and access) is more difficult.
Should we then pine and work for a computer and an Internet connection for everyone, like what Singapore is reportedly attempting to do? There are already too many computers on the planet, and a lot of them are ending up as landfill (”redundant technology”) because of very fast rates of obsolescence and other reasons. Many of these destined-for-the dump machines are perfectly okay for email and other Internet functions but they’re simply old and discarded for the latest that the multinationals have to sell. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people on the planet don’t have computers at all.
So if we could save a lot of redundant machines, extend the working lives of most computers, and avoid the overproduction of these things, should we strive to redistribute technology to the millions of digital have-nots? Yes and No. The Internet will grow and it does bring benefits to individuals and communities. Redistribution or democratisation of technology is good but it does not necessarily need to happen along the personal computing (or a computer in every home) model.
There are community or cooperative computing models, where technological resources are shared and used collectively and equitably, to complement personal computing models. This might mean more cybercafes (but more affordable), community computing/Internet centres, increased access through public libraries, techno-cooperatives, and the like. There are working models in some parts of the world. There’s one in Delhi that I’ve heard of where a new media collective (called Sarai) have been providing Internet-cum-desktop publishing services to a neighbourhood (and where at least 15 people share one PC for all their work). I’m working with some people in Darwin to plan for and eventually set up a community-based multimedia resource centre with pooled equipment and other resources that might operate as a cooperative. I am all for democratic access to cyberspace but access should perhaps not always equate to individual ownership of technology assets (and liabilities!).
In the belly of the (digital) monster
As the Internet was invented and is fueled by big business (and originally by the military), it is really possible for online communities to thrive in an sort of environment? I think it is not only possible but necessary.
The infrastructure of the Internet is similar in some ways to the mass media (radio, television, print): capitalists own and run them but sometimes other groups and interests get to use them too (and even get to set up their own radio stations and newspapers, or produce their own television programs). There have always been alternative uses for media and the Internet is no different — Floodnet’s sabotage of Mexican government web sites in support of Zapatistas is a famous example. Less famous and more popular uses for building communities online are the many, many email lists, egroups, bulletin boards, web site farms (like geocities), and blogs; the P2P stuff also threatens dominant commercial paradigms for the Internet.
The Internet, as Kitchin observes, is largely unpoliced (in spite of misguided attempts to censor and control it by governments like our own) so there is still (at least for now) a lot of room to manoeuvre to foster alternative interests on it. But even if the Internet became more tightly policed (and more narrowly subservient to commercial and other elitist interests), ways will be found to make alternative voices heard (with the help of hackers and crackers maybe). We should use the net for alternative, even non-dominant interests especially as it (as Kitchin also observes) provides a very fast and cheap means of mass communication and interaction.
The Internet was built partly through popular usage and development, sometimes in conflict with dominant commercial-military-government agendas for the Internet. This popular (i.e. democratic) aspect of the Internet grows, and so do the conflicts with other agendas. It is possible however to build on the popular history of the Net to enhance its democratisation, possibly using growth (or “non-growth”) models other than consumerist computing.
———
*Rob Kitchin, Cyberspace: The World in the Wires, John Wiley & Sons, England, 1998. This is the main reference for this piece.
from bramilo.weblogs.com
When talk leads to the relationship between the Net and community arts (or community cultural development, or community development), issues about the accessibility of the net are inevitably raised.
The statistic about a third of Australian households being connected to the web is often interpreted as proof that the Net is not a universally accessible thing for most Australian communities so online arts projects cater only for the connected few. On the other hand, I have heard it argued that other venues for expression – the theatre for example – are not universally accessible to communities anyway and much work needs to be done to make inclusive theatre and “community” arts. Also, another way of looking at the statistic that a third of Australian Households are connected is: there are potentially millions of people from different walks of life, religions, races, socio-economic classes, etc. that can be targets for online community building.
The debate about the “digital divide” raises questions about what community means in relation to pursuing community cultural development that involves new technologies. Does it mean technologising communities or groupings that have been the target of “traditional” community arts, or does it mean building and facilitating communities and community arts among online communities?
I think both approaches – that is, empowering bricks-and-mortar communities with new technologies, and forming online communities among the digitally connected – should be explored and pursued.
from bramilo.weblogs.com
After Esperance and working closely with Pilar, I invited Pilar to work with me on a joint project about our very similar life stories. I suggested calling it Recuerdos and putting our stories online ona joint web site. Pilar has agreed to the concept and name and broad plans.
We need to work on the detail of the project. She’s on holidays now and may got to Chile for a few weeks early next year (and I’ll be in the Philippines, 15 January - 15 February) so it may be March 2001 at the earliest before we make a start on this. I suggested that Pilar take photos and notes and whatever about her trip (and so would I) as evocations for the start of our project.
I’m thinking of using a blog — maybe blogger rather than Manila — for this project as it supports remote web editing and “instant” publishing.
from bramilo.weblogs.com
I facilitated an online workshop for the Education and Social Action Conference hosted by the Centre for Popular Education, University of Technology Sydney, on 30 November 2000.
The workshop was about “collaboration on the internet, dialogical artmaking, and communities.” I was supposed to facilitate this workshop in Sydney (at the UTS computer lab) but decided to run the session using Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and other Internet technologies from Darwin principally to use the Internet to discuss the Internet.
I prepared a slideshow/presentation as an introduction to the workshop. It is an online presentation at http://www1.octa4.net.au/bramilo/cida/utsworkshop
Below are the logs of the chats we had on IRC and on The Palace.
=================
IRC Log
Log file opened at: 30/11/00 2:39:07 PM
#cida: @ircleuser
End of /NAMES list.
Mode is +
Channel created at Thursday, 30 November 2000 3:38:53 PM
ircleuser is now known as bong
bong: i am here
iMac6 (newbie@138.25.184.9944) has joined channel #cida
iMac5 (newbie@138.25.184.9943) has joined channel #cida
iMac6: hello
bong: welcome imacs
iMac8 (newbie@138.25.184.9946) has joined channel #cida
iMac5: from here to nowhere
iMac9 (newbie@138.25.184.9947) has joined channel #CIDA
iMAC14 (newbie@138.25.184.10073) has joined channel #cida
iMac5: nasilsiniz Ece?
iMac6: hello phil
bong: you can change your nicks by clicking on the nick button in the
Connections window (if you’re using IRCle)
iMac13 (newbie@138.25.184.10072) has joined channel #cida
iMac6: hello ros
iMac12 (newbie@138.25.184.10071) has joined channel #cida
iMac13: hi there all
iMac6: well learn
iMac13 is now known as Melba
iMac12: hi I’m Celina
iMac5: bugun, cok guzel gun, degil mi?
iMac8: hi I’m David, joining in too
iMAC14: kxzcjhvasduv
Melba: guys, to get a proper nick, type /nick [the name you want]
iMAC14: My name is Andrew and I am online
iMac6: yevet
Melba: andrew, type /nick Andrew
iMac12 is now known as axe
Melba: hi axe
iMac5: ok will everybody please introduce theselves?
iMac6: my name is Ece and i’m here too
iMac5: hello ece, and…
iMac6: go and get angry phil
axe is now known as celina
iMac5: nick ros
Signoff: iMac8 (Exit: )
celina: I’m the PopEd research officer
iMac5 is now known as ros
iMac6 is now known as Ece
bong: hello, this is bong in darwin
ros: celina… do you normally use the internat to chat?
celina: How is everyone finding the confefrence so far?
iMAC14 is now known as wombat
iMac8 (newbie@138.25.184.9946) has joined channel #cida
Melba: hello wombat 
wombat: Hello, my name is Wombat
celina: I’ve never actually used the internet to chat
ros: I am enjoying it very much… I like the fact that there is smallish
Melba: bong, hello from Sydney
bong: hello, melba
ros: bong, are there other people we can talk to?
celina: Bong, so haw can this be used for CCD?
Ece: how’s the weather up in Darwin?
iMac8 is now known as lou
bong: i invited others but they haven’t logged in yet so i don’t know
Melba: ros, we’re other people
bong: its drizzling so its a relief.
iMac9 is now known as chukki
Ece: we
Ece: we’ve had a down pour
lou: we are some of them
chukki: we have huge storms predicted this afternoon
bong: you can see darwin harbour from a storm cam –
http://www.qantmnt.com/webcam
wombat: Bong, any good conferences coming up in Darwin in the near future ?
bong: not that i know of. we often look for conferences to escape to from
here
celina: Melba, you seemed to be pretty au fait with this technology. How
have you used it before?
Melba: yup. i’ve been using the net for social action since 1995.
bong: charles, is this session being logged at your end?
Melba: recently i’ve been working with people with learning difficulties.
we use voice and video as well as text– lots of people can understand and speak
much more than they can read and write
chukki: no… do you want it to be?
Melba: we’re doing a workshop at a conference in miami, dec 9 oz time
bong: yes, please
ros: Bomg, how do you use this program for the purposes of cultural
development, artmaking etc?
Melba: getting self-advocates and supporters from several countries online
at the same time, just chatting– to demonstrate what the tech can do
*chukki* how do I do that? I can’t find the function..
Melba: you’re welcome to join us if you want. email donability@gis.net for
more info
bong: i haven’t used IRC much, but I’ve been using The Palace more (which
I hope we can try out soon)
celina: Melba, are the people you work with all located far away?
ros: there must be quite a few specific sites where you can do this, no?
bong: charles, under preferences you should find “Logging”
celina: I’m just trying to understand the attraction of this.
iMac10 (newbie@138.25.184.10069) has joined channel #cida
lou: i spose the atraction is for realtime talk
Melba: i do work with people in my own self-advocacy group, and other
groups in victoria (i’m from melbourne)
Melba: we network with people from the us, canada, the uk, japan…
bong: folks, should we start the formal bit of the workshop?
lou: yes please do
ros: Do you find that it is a good way to organise groups etc?
bong: we can also keep chatting as we are now
*chukki* done… but I’ll copy the text when we are finished and paste it
into a simpletext doc.
lou: how do we start
bong: thanks, charles
ros: Bong, how long have you lived in Darwin?
Melba: we use icq, a program called sonicmail to record/send sound files, a
program called firetalk to do live chat
celina: And is this better than say an email or listserver?
bong: i’ve lived here since 92
celina: Does anyone know? Is it possible to save this session as a file?
bong: yes, i am logging it here
Melba: we have an email list, too. for people who don’t read well, tho–
voice chat is more accessible
Melba: we want access for all
chukki: celina: my understanding is that synchronous chat has different
pedagogical advantages to asynchronous like email and discussion boards
ros: I don’t know… but wouldn’t it be difficult as it is interactive?
Melba: sonicmail is a very simple program, like a computer tape recorder.
people with significant learning difficulties can use it, once you show them how
celina: Bong, Hernan has just asked us to give you the space to talk. Gpo
ahead
bong: okay, do we need to do the formal/structured bit?
celina: Up to you
bong: thanks
bong: hello everyone. and hello hernan. como esta, companero?
lou: hi
Ece: hello bong
iMac10: Muy vien gracias
iMac10 is now known as hernan
Melba: hi hernan
celina: What next?
bong: I was hoping to get you all to view a slideshow I’ve prepared as
input for discussion. The slide show is online and Charles should be able to
direct you to the url. So can we do that first, watch the slide show then
continue chatting?
ros: yes
celina: Charles is getting ready
bong: you can view the slides at your pace, of course. then if you can
note topics for discussion/chatting, please.
chukki: bong: I’m getting an error 404 for that URL, do want to enter it
from there and I’ll tell everyone how to transfer it
bong: http://www1.octa4.net.au/bramilo/cida/utsworkshop/
bong: is it working now?
chukki: bogn: people are watching it now..
bong: thanks
chukki: they’ve all gone really quiet
bong: oooh
chukki: everyone is obviously reading
bong: good thing
bong: if the pages are loading too slowly or are not that sharp, they can
go to the text version by clicking on the “A” icon at the bottom
chukki: it looks fine…
bong: thanks
chukki: and we have a fast connection
bong: of course, not like us plebs 
chukki: hahha .. of course
bong: someday i will gorge on ISDN or cable
chukki: UTS does sit over the NSW RNO which is the Eastern Seaboards link to
the rest of the world
bong: good old alma mater (i attended uts in the early 90s)
chukki: Bong at home we have a microwave link that gives us a 12MB link
which is much faster than what we have here.. I studied here in the early 90’s
too
bong: you’re just trying to make me jealous, aren’t you?
bong: envious, i should say
chukki: yeah
bong: someday …
chukki: what course did you study?
bong: MA (Writing), with Tony Mitchell, Stephen Muecke et al as lecturers.
Never finsihed it, though.
Melba: text version– great for people who use screen readers
chukki: I was studying MEch Eng at that time… it took me till last year to
finish.. hard slog
lou: what do you think about ADSL or satelite for rural/small towns
bong: always a hard slog, studying
Melba: makes the site accessible to more people
bong: adsl/satellite isn’t available for most of the NT (not even darwin)
lou: but just as a concept or if not what could work 120 km from Adelaide
bong: melba, there is a text version of the slide show
bong: click on the “A” icon at the bottom
bong: i heard telstra is rewoking call zones so more remote areas can have
untimed local call facilities
lou: oh really when perchance
bong: you never know with telstra, but the goss is within the year
bong: sorry, next 12 months
iMac7 (newbie@138.25.184.10070) has joined channel #cida
lou: oh well lets not hold our breaths
bong: we are used to not holding our breath up here
iMac7 is now known as rojoloto
celina: Bong: reading about dialogical artmaking. I get your definition of
dialogue, but how about that of art?
bong: when people are done with the slides, give us a yell so we can
continue with chatting
celina: Bong: we’re all back to the chat…
bong: art is such a contentious thing. the notion of art varies from
culture to culture, and even within a culture (in flux) can cause great debates.
bong: so i sometimes settle for “creative expression” as an alternative
term
celina: so how do you see it working with(in) dialogue?
lou: http://www1.octa4.net.au/bramilo/cida/utsworkshop/
bong: the making of art does not need to be individual. when more than
one creator is involved, then dialogue between creators is possible. another
possibility is that a creator, even alone, dialogues with the
environment/society.
ros: how do you see different communities accessing this technology to
engage in dialogue?
lou has left channel #cida
bong: different communities will have different degrees of access to the
technologies. one project i’m working on is “redundant technology,” where “old”
computers can be used for things like email and chatting. so when issues of
access are addressed, the usefulness of technologies can be addressed
celina: aren’t then simply creating talking about social interactions?
Log file closed at: 30/11/00 4:04:25 PM
Log file opened at: 30/11/00 4:05:33 PM
#cida: ircleuser rojoloto hernan celina Melba wombat chukki ros Ece
End of /NAMES list.
Mode is +
Channel created at Thursday, 30 November 2000 3:38:53 PM
ircleuser: yes, we are but the interaction happens within a different — say,
disembodied — environment so the rules of engagement, so to speak, are
different and modes of interaction will be different.
ircleuser: sorry i was disconnected by a lightning strike but i’m back.
celina: Can you give me so examples of rules?
chukki: it must be getting pretty wile
Melba: are you on line in a storm?!?!
chukki: wile = wild
ircleuser: the emphasis and real possibilities of staying anonymous, for
example.
ircleuser: yes, i’m online in a storm (a little one)
Ece: possibilities are surely more limited
celina: Anonymous: well how honest or trustworthy are those interactions?
Melba: i like being able to work, share ideas with people in other
communities. people i would probably never be able to interact with otherwise
ircleuser: possibilities are more limited: yes and no. Very limited when
measured against what we expect from flesh-to-flesh engagements but not so
limited when we have different expectations
chukki: Celina: that is a very good question
chukki: I’m sure many papers have been written about it
ircleuser: dishonesty is everywhere, but its probably easier to be dishonest
online.
Ece: possibility of being dishonest increases
ircleuser: there have been many papers written about this
chukki: For those of you who don’t know, IRC (this chat thing we are doing)
has been around for many years more than the accepted current idea of the
“internet”
Ece: a litany of ways to say nothing different really]
ros: unless you’re looking for funding.. does it matter that much… an
idea is an idea… just difficult I suppose to build on that if you are working
with pranksters
ircleuser: yes, you can keep saying nothing different online as well as offline
but the problem may be more with the message rather than the medium sometimes
Melba: the question is– what do people gain by dishonesty? in some
settings– online and in the “real”, “3D”, “meat world”– people have a lot to
gain. in other settings– again, both online and off– people don’t really have
much to gain by dishonesty
wombat: Do you think a personal webcam and streaming audio would add to the
experience of this IRC or simply lead to an incoherent cacaphony !
ros: I suppose it comes down to committment to a dialogue
Ece: people are reduced to words
ircleuser: honesty does exist, though, online and offline. and we can choose
to deal with persons we trust and try to avoid those we can’t.
chukki: wombat: cacophony!@
ros: what about sound/ pictures etc? There was a suggestion of this in
the slides
Melba: i use voice in my work online. for people who can’t read, it’s
essential. access for all
ircleuser: a webcam will assist communication (according to theories of
“sociable media”). some people however enjoy the cacophony and disjointed
nature of chats.
celina: You mentioned theatre in your slides presentation, how do you relate
this with that?
Ece: trust is more than words
Ece: we only have one variable
chukki: it is possible to convey feeling using words tho
ircleuser: again, there are varieties of theatre. there is theatre of
discourse and some of these technologies can be useful
Ece: to make a judgement on the honesty of what is being typed
Melba: theatre of discourse– explain more?
ros: how does a remote community become included?
celina: But what about the visual and physical side of theatre
celina: Bong: We’re all waiting for you to reply to all our questions:)
ircleuser: as for relying on words, or on the voice without the face, this may
be a metter of attitude too. For many years (and until now) I make do with
letters/emails and phone conversations with my family who are overseas. I used
two-way radio for a while to talk to my father in Manila. If you can’t have
everything, then sometimes near-enough will do.
Ece: those that can type fast have a def advantage
chukki: you use this often enough, you GET better at typing
ros: those who can read…
ircleuser: Theatre of discourse is a category of Theatre of the Oppressed as
fostered by Boal. He talks about specific forms like invisible theatre,
newspaper theatre,.
Melba: i’ve been meaning to look more closely at boal’s work…
ircleuser: This theatre is about instigating discussion/dialogue about concrete
issues of the day, relevant to people witnessing or participating in the theatre
of discourse
ros: invisible theatre…? What is this?
wombat: I just think this whole experience is …… well…..postmodern ! I
mean down at the Sydney end we are all here in a little community group
furiously communicating with each other . . . but not directly face to face.For
me an intriguing experience at once close together at once far apart.
celina: Hernan is letting us know verbally that he has a good grasp on Boal
ircleuser: Invisible theatre is where “actors” have a script, go to a public
place, perform the script — which is designed to provoke debate on an issue –
and involving others in that place in a play while they don’t knbow it is a
play.
chukki: he doesn’t beleive his typing is fast enought
ircleuser: yes, hernan knows boal very well
ircleuser: while hernan is talking, i will sneak in this: invisible theatre, i
think, is possible in virtual places. i was thinking of having hernan and i do
an invisible theatre piece for this workshop but didn’t manage to do that.
maybe next time. hernan knows of actual pieces that he and i have been
inbvolved with in Sydney/NSW.
ros: How can we incorporate this work (theatre of the Oppressed) in an
interactive technological experience?
Melba: tell please
celina: I’m still not clear as to where the artmaking comes into play
celina: Are you talking about creative expressions as opposed to destructive
ircleuser: I am just beginning to explore that stuff. I find it complicated
because of the nature of the net itself (disembodied, full of risks vis a vis
genuine communication, etc.)
chukki is wondering if perhaps we should move to the Palace software
Ece: this isn’t creative expression
chukki: Unless of course you want to continue in IRC
ros: has anyone seen the poet Kominos’interactive poetry site?
celina: No what is it
ircleuser: no, this is chatting. but it could be one basis for creative
expression as was the casse with a hypermedia project done by Josephine Wilson
and Linda Carolli (link in my web site).
Melba: i have worked with other homeless and formerly homeless people to
develop a theatre piece online, it was then performed off-line.
ros: how did it work?
celina: Haha, performance. So our dialogues are just roles?
Melba: streetwrites (the group) has an online workshop for homeless and low
income people: www.realchangenews.org/StreetWrites
ircleuser: There is a theory that all communication is performance because we
do put on roles every time.
Ece: can we communicated with images and work on those instead of text
chukki: +o chukki
ircleuser: I am aware that we are nearing the end of the workshop time so maybe
we should try the palace as suggested by Charles.
chukki: whoops
hernan: Bong that is not a theory,that is LIFE
Melba: if you want to see my stuff,
www.realchangenews.org/StreetWrites/ria.html but there’s a sampler of many
people’s writing
celina: We’re going to Palace…
ircleuser: okay, see you at the palace
ircleuser is now known as bong
wombat has left channel #cida
chukki: for those of you who are interested, the IP address of Bong’s server
is 138.80.45.71
Ece has left channel #cida
chukki has left channel #cida
rojoloto: leave
rojoloto has left channel #cida
Signoff: ros (Exit: )
Signoff: hernan (Exit: )
Signoff: Melba (Exit: )
Signoff: celina (Exit: )
bong: bye
# You’re not on that channel
Log file closed at: 30/11/00 4:46:45 PM
================
PALACE LOG
Welcome to Digital Media Centre NTU Bong!
Bong: hello everyone
Guest 40: hi there
Guest 33: ros
Guest 36: hi bong… this will be harder without names
Guest 36: hhahaha
Bong: yes, but this will have to do for now
Guest 39: Hernan
Guest 42: Are moving on to another discussion or following on?
Guest 36: “I’m spinning around”
Bong: the palace is a visual chat program basically but you can do a
lot more than you can with IRC
Guest 36: You should be able to if we had all options available
Guest 37: like what?
Guest 36: look at Bong’s face
Guest 42: Can you perform shakespear with this?
Bong: to move around, bring your mouse to a different location then
click; this will move your smiley. if your pointer changes to a hand then
you’ve hit a hotspot and if you click you will enter a different place.
Guest 36: why the hell not
Bong: let us click in teh centre of this page to enter another room
Bong: wander around, if you get lost, yell out at IRC
Bong: hello, are you having trouble entering the other rooms?
Guest 36: no… I’ve been there (it’s Charles
Bong: sorry.
(Guests wandered around for a while)
Guest 36: were baaaaack
Bong: yes, you are.
Bong: my face (part of it) is on the smiley
Guest 36: looks like a police photo..
Bong: hello, having trouble gettin gout?
Guest 42: This feels more like D&D to me than a chat session
Bong: what is d&d
Guest 42: D&D is dungeons and dragons
Guest 40: we’re playing with the tech… we’re allowed to do that…
Guest 33: this is very strange Bong
Bong: yes, of course. this is a successor to MUDs (multi user
dungeons) and uses similar metaphors/language
Guest 33: I wish I had a face
Guest 42: WellI’m having fun
Guest 36: you may notice that there is a window down the bottom that
logs the chat a lot like IRC
Bong: you need to make a face then wear it but you need to register
to have that facility
Guest 33: but do you get a face?
Bong: psychedelic now, man
Guest 42: How do join this site?
Guest 40: no fair, i want to do that…
Guest 33: How can I open my eyes?
Guest 40: avatars -> guest avatars -> click on the face you want
Bong: you don’t need to join this site. you just need the palace
user program then connect to the site. cahrles has the ip address for it
Guest 33: That’s great
Bong: this site is almost always up and running, barring power
failures in darwin
Guest 42: Charles can you pass that on to all of us with the saved IRC
session
Guest 36: sure
Guest 42: Ta!
Guest 33: How many people can come?
Guest 40: 39, what are you mad about?
Bong: i’m running this on an old Mac 7200 at the Uni up here. good
use of redundant technology, i reckon
Guest 33: I’m not mad, I can’t shut my mouth
Guest 40: i wish we could get more businesses and gov departments to
pass their “redundant tech” on
Bong: that would be good
Guest 36: You would have to make it commercially viable
Guest 40: we’ve got some small puter recycling schemes in vic, but it’s
still hard to get puters for people
Guest 33: I wish we could get something other than redundant technology
at work
Guest 42: There’s a lot of real smiles and giggles here in the room that
is not really conveyed even by changing our faces
Guest 40: and the number of puters that are dumped is enormous
Bong: thanks for smiles and giggles
Guest 40: people are dumping pentiums now
Guest 36: I’ll be off…. nice working with you Bong
Bong: this software will run on a 486 PC and on a 68K Mac
Guest 33: Pentium whats?
Bong: Thanks Guest 36
Guest 42: Thanks Charles for your time and work
Guest 36: see you guys, enjoy the rest of the workshop
Guest 37: I’m going too, bye
Bong: Thanks, Charles. Will catch up later
Guest 33: Thanks Bong.. it has been interesting
Guest 37: enjoy the rest of the storm
Guest 33: Thanks Hernan
Guest 42: Bong, we are nearing the end of this workshop. Any thing else
you wanted us to go through?
Bong: Thank you all. No, nothing I really want to show you at the
moment but you’re welcome to visit my web site for more info
Guest 42: Thanks Bong I had a great time.
Guest 40: if people want to see a demo of the work i’m doing with the
net and people with disabilities– sat 8-10am eastern summer time, we’re linking
up with miami and other places for a demo. email me or don ocallaghan.
Guest 40: my group– Bear_in_Mind@excite.com.au
Bong: I’ll hang around for a few more minutes if some people still
want to chat.
Guest 42: 40 was is your email?
Guest 40: Don– donability@gis.net
Guest 39: Muchas gracias amigo mio
Bong: de nada, companero
Bong: celina, hernan. are we finished?
Guest 39: Bong i will contact you soon
Guest 40: my email– Bear_in_mind@excite.com.au
Guest 42: I think so. Everyone is gone. Thanks Bong for this it was
great
Bong: Thanks, hernan. And thanks everyone
Guest 40: if you want to be in melbourne– we’re offering free breakfast
:)
Guest 40: have to do something to get people to work at 8am on a
saturday!
Bong: Yes, I can like being in Melbourne
Guest 40: ok, if you can get there by sat 9th dec…
Guest 42: Logging out. Ta
Bong: Maybe not, but keep me posted as maybe we can do something
online too.
Guest 40: we can’t afford interstate transport costs (tho we are
covering transport costs for people in vic)
Guest 40: if you download the software we’re using– most of it free–
you can join in from darwin
Guest 39: By now
Guest 40: don will be excited to get another site
Guest 40: email me, i’ll give you more info
Bong: bye
No Connection
from bramilo.weblogs.com
Dr Micahel Christie, Associate Dean at the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Northern Territory University, is looking at possibilities for developing Aboriginal knowledges and performance in cyberia. A key idea he is developing is that of the Virtual Garma, where Yolngu conduct learning through a garma framework online.
He has discussed his ideas with a number of people and he is interested in continuing discussions. Michael and I decided to set up a Virtual Garma blog to provide a place for online discussion among those interested in the project of Virtual Garma. I set a Manila site (http://virtualgarma.manilasites.com) for Michael but as we were having trouble with it for a while — Netscape seemed to take forever to download pages, while IE was faster — I also set up a blog at Blogger (http://virtualgarma.blogger.com). Michael will try out both bloggers to see which one works better for his purposes.