@anthropology

A follow up to respond to some replies. I don't know exactly what form this should take. I am speaking about things I don't know very well here. These issues tie into the institutional and economic dimensions of how academic labour is valued - dynamics I don't fully understand or have clear answers to.

But this Fediverse newbie is optimistic about where we might be headed.

/ DIY - what do we want?

The fediverse community shows that it is possible to build your own space according to your needs and beliefs if no such space is available. This does not have to be one space, we can have many spaces with their own values. It shows that it is at least worth trying to create alternative platforms if we are dissatisfied with what is at hand. As @MaxineDavid writes, organising this might not be easy. Still, researchers are already doing loads of free labour for some pay-walled journals, so why not think of ways to redirect this energy on our own terms? (But also it is complicated and perhaps the challenges are embedded in funding policies? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-academic-publishing-disastrous-capitalism )

/ No corporate algorithm

By giving up on a bit of handy searcheability, we are freed from corporate steering over what content we get to see, and in turn, what content gets valued. This is not to say that dynamics of influence are not operating in this space, but at least it does not follow design logics in which our attention is the currency. I am very happy to trade twitter's eerie ability to read/predict my interests for this structure resembling the more serendipitous early internet. I am curious to see what cultures of thinking-together might emerge in a space that is less structured around accumulating visibility. See also this post on mastodon's 'antiviral' design https://uxdesign.cc/mastodon-is-antiviral-design-42f090ab8d51

I don't mean to bash on the formal and corporate platforms we have. Surely they have their value, but I am very hopeful about what this Mastodon movement could give breathing space to.

#anthropology #anthrotalk #AcademicChatter #OpenScience

(I post this again directly here because I still seem to have trouble with the anthropology group link sending this post to another inactive group with the same name)

@anthropology

A follow up to respond to some replies. I don't know exactly what form this should take. I am speaking about things I don't know very well here. These issues tie into the institutional and economic dimensions of how academic labour is valued - dynamics I don't fully understand or have clear answers to.

But this Fediverse newbie is optimistic about where we might be headed.

/ DIY - what do we want?

The fediverse community shows that it is possible to build your own space according to your needs and beliefs if no such space is available. This does not have to be one space, we can have many spaces with their own values. It shows that it is at least worth trying to create alternative platforms if we are dissatisfied with what is at hand. As @MaxineDavid writes, organising this might not be easy. Still, researchers are already doing loads of free labour for some pay-walled journals, so why not think of ways to redirect this energy on our own terms? (But also it is complicated and perhaps the challenges are embedded in funding policies? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-academic-publishing-disastrous-capitalism )

/ No corporate algorithm

By giving up on a bit of handy searcheability, we are freed from corporate steering over what content we get to see, and in turn, what content gets valued. This is not to say that dynamics of influence are not operating in this space, but at least it does not follow design logics in which our attention is the currency. I am very happy to trade twitter's eerie ability to read/predict my interests for this structure resembling the more serendipitous early internet. I am curious to see what cultures of thinking-together might emerge in a space that is less structured around accumulating visibility. See also this post on mastodon's 'antiviral' design https://uxdesign.cc/mastodon-is-antiviral-design-42f090ab8d51

I don't mean to bash on the formal and corporate platforms we have. Surely they have their value, but I am very hopeful about what this Mastodon movement could give breathing space to.

#anthropology #anthrotalk #AcademicChatter #OpenScience

(I post this again directly here because I still seem to have trouble with the anthropology group link sending this post to another inactive group with the same name)

@anthroplogy @ecologies

A follow up to respond to some replies. I don't know exactly what form this should take. I am speaking about things I don't know very well here. These issues tie into the institutional and economic dimensions of how academic labour is valued - dynamics I don't fully understand or have clear answers to.

But this Fediverse newbie is optimistic about where we might be headed.

/ DIY - what do we want?

The fediverse community shows that it is possible to build your own space according to your needs and beliefs if no such space is available. This does not have to be one space, we can have many spaces with their own values. It shows that it is at least worth trying to create alternative platforms if we are dissatisfied with what is at hand. As @MaxineDavid writes, organising this might not be easy. Still, researchers are already doing lots of labour for some pay-walled journals, so why not think of ways to redirect this energy on our own terms? (But also it is complicated and perhaps the challenges are embedded in funding policies? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-academic-publishing-disastrous-capitalism )

/ No corporate algorithm

By giving up on a bit of handy searcheability, we are freed from corporate steering over what content we get to see, and in turn, what content gets valued. This is not to say that dynamics of influence are not operating in this space, but at least it does not follow design logics in which our attention is the currency. I am very happy to trade twitter's eerie ability to read/predict my interests for this structure resembling the more serendipitous early internet. I am curious to see what cultures of thinking-together might emerge in a space that is less structured around accumulating visibility. See also this post on mastodon's 'antiviral' design https://uxdesign.cc/mastodon-is-antiviral-design-42f090ab8d51

I don't mean to bash on the formal and corporate platforms we have. Surely they have their value, but I am very hopeful about what this Mastodon movement could give breathing space to.

#anthropology #anthrotalk #AcademicChatter #OpenScience

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/11/19/requiem-for-a-tweet-is-there-a-future-for-the-academic-social-capital-held-on-the-platform/

Interesting read on how twitter as a profit-driven social network gained a position similar to profit-driven journals in mediating the circulation of ideas, building networks and gaining social capital.

Now that it is going down, let us learn from the vision of the fediverse community to build a more horizontal academic platform.

@anthroplogy @ecologies

#anthropology #anthrotalk #AcademicChatter #OpenScience

@bairdcampbell @anthropology We need a hashtag like #anthrotwitter was, it was great for finding people discussing anthropological issues – #anthropology is too general. How about #anthrotalk?