This is the second part of a two-part series. See also this article. Both articles first appeared in a slightly different form on the blog of OpenTech(AUC).
“…if we can’t convince people to take over the means of production when it only requires a USB stick with Linux and a short online course on bash/python, how are we ever going to gain control over (and share the fruits of) other, more material and inert kinds of technology?”
Given the ongoing #coup in the #UnitedStates and the ensuing increased security and privacy issues, I am refusing to actively contribute to the usage of the #Microsoft #email service of the #UniversityOfAmsterdam (18 Feb 2025: see update below).
I am archiving my incoming email to my own server, which is based in the #Netherlands and I only respond from my own email address (like this link).
Yes, it’s largely symbolic, but at this point, when it comes to forms of resistance, we can’t be picky.
A Dutch version of this article has been published on doorbraak.eu.
Israel and Hamas have signed a ceasefire: “we” finally have what we have been chanting for.
So what now? Business as usual? Move on with our lives?
Many people are eager to do so, and many are already doing so.
But this is unacceptable.
So what do we do?
The miserable truth is that the worst kinds of injustice can often not be undone: we cannot raise 100,000 Palestinians back from the death.
This post is part of a series about the alleged return of feudalism with the advent of Big Tech.
What is capitalism? What words, ideas and/or concepts would you generally associate with it?
Some might say it is all about “technological development” driven by the “desire to be rich”. Others might say something like “greed” and the “naked pursuit of power”.
But greed, lust for power and even technological development have been around for much longer than capitalism.
This post originally appeared on the website of OpenTech(AUC).
Imagine you’re at a house party, and people are getting drunk. Slowly but steadily, they are raising their voice. And as more and more people do, you are going to have to raise your voice as well. At the end of the night, everyone is screaming in each others’ ears, without being any more audible than when everyone was talking at a normal volume.
When our governments insist with all their propaganda tools that speaking out against Israel is antisemitic - conflating antizionism with antisemitism - we can’t be surprised that some angry teens in Amsterdam - furious about an ongoing genocide - make the same (stupid and dangerous) mistake.
Fighting the latter, implies fighting the former.
This blog post first appeared in February 2024 on the website of OpenTech(AUC).
Normally, when you feel you’re getting the short end of a stick, for example when the supermarket sells you expensive mushy cauliflowers, or when the organization you volunteer at treats you disrespectfully, you go and find what you need somewhere else.
This ability to “defect” to an alternative when you feel you’re not getting a good deal, is an important “power” that helps you get reasonable deals.1
Warning: This post contains some spoilers about the movie “Coherence”.
Imagine that, right now, through the door that is closest to you, someone walks in, and it is… you. A complete, full, physical double of yourself. This other you is as perplexed as you: similarly shocked to find a complete, full, physical double of itself.
If you think this would merely be interesting and cool you probably have not seen the movie “Coherence”.
I read this book with some friends. Someone had recommended it, and we felt that it was an appropriate time to reflect on what antisemitism has meant in the past, to better understand what it means in the present.
At the start I was a bit sceptical about this contemporary relevance: after all, a lot has happened since Sartre wrote this book (written in 1944, published in 1946). For example, to just mention something, the founding of the state Israel (in 1948). But after reading the book, I was surprised how helpful some of the arguments still are (at least to me).
Today I was accused of “tokenization” in sharing this powerful essay by Masha Gessen on Mastodon (see the reactions under this post). Because of the character limit of a Mastodon post (at least on my server), I decided to turn my response into a little blog post.
In short, the principle that I was accused of violating looks like this: as an outsider to a community, I should not share/boost the view of a minority of that community, when that view disqualifies the concerns that are held by the majority of that community.