<div>Dear Jernej,</div><div> </div><div>can I use some of your observations in my thesis as quotes (and Michael as well)? You see i am stuggling myself with finding a right approach (but, it's what a PhD thesis should be about, shouldn't it be?). I started with celebratory studies (boyd and Jenkins, - which are hard to avoid when you start looking at facebook), then I stumbled upon works of Christian Fuchs and my focus changes drastically, as this was it: he saw facebook from a broader perspective, from a point that scholars studying the phenomenon didn't analyse till then (at least in researching online networks). i even tried to incorporate quotes of my participants in such a way so that facebook appears as evil...the capitalistic machine exploiting us and using our data.</div>
<div>but the problem, of course, occurred at some point as i simply couldn't ignore my data and my own autoetnographical experience with Facebook. Yes, users do actually realise all these facts (that they are being monitored...the question is: by whom exactly? and that they work for free for Facebook), but as it emerges they don't mind...even so- called 'alternatives' who can be called as communists or the sort in offline life. In fact, they admit again and again that it's on Facebook that they organise raves, illegal parties and all sorts of protests. And users repeatedly say, - they don't mind being monitored as long as they are respected and can do what they want. This, of course, brings a question of what is privacy in the current age (see, latest article of Fuchs on the subject) and also who monitors whom? Users on facebook in the majority of cases monitor themselves and other users...</div>
<div>Also, Facebook fulfills many other functions: community, friendship, celebrity culture...yes, Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but Facebook got into a totally different market/niche, - which would be hard to compete with.</div>
<div>But you never know, of course, you never know...</div><div>Just to make a final point about my data is that: people really like facebook, including University professors and sceptics. of course, my data is only 25 face-to-face interviews...but it is underpinned by some other studies in the field.<br>
Ekaterina Netchitailova<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Jernej Prodnik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jernej.prodnik@fdv.uni-lj.si">jernej.prodnik@fdv.uni-lj.si</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="SL" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Andrew, I think most strands of Marxism never
neglected questions of resistance by subjectivities or the possibilities for
(counter)power produced by social movements (i.e., they never neglected
subjective aspects or considered people as being passive dopes, if anything, they
could be seen as too idealist at times), which is nevertheless not a subject
matter of critique of political economy as such, or is it? I’m not sure
it is. I feel critique of pol-econ basically gives progressive movements one of
its key weapons for resistance, but that’s about it, it doesn’t provide
organizational prescriptions or really set up any specific goals (unless
seriously paired with critical political theory). This doesn’t mean they
can’t be inspired by Marxism of course. Unless you’re a stringent
dialectical materialist in a Stalin’s mould, and I don’t think there’s
many left, you can’t really overlook agency in a broader perspective of
how changes in society occur and how to look at society as such. Autonomist (and/or
(post)operaist) Marxism have been perhaps most exceptional in these accounts
since the seventies, focusing especially on the role of subjects in the
production process and how resistance can be set about. Lately it was especially
Negri’s and Hardt’s trilogy (Empire, Multitude, and Commowealth) that
focused exactly on the questions of agency and resistance of the multitude.
They are all remain materialists though :)</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Why would users leave Facebook? Well, I
don’t know, but if they feel like they have to protest against Facebook
on the Facebook itself, I’m not sure they’re doing it the right way
:) It’s up to the users to decide what to do and I fully understand it
would be a very difficult decision to leave (social exclusion, inter-personal
pressures and so on). But you just have to ask yourself whether you prefer a
model worked on by Wikipedia or the one favored by Facebook? The latter is
grounded in surveillance over its users, invading their privacy, and selling
their private information to the third-parties, it’s using quite suppressive
techniques of control and monitoring. It’s probably a no-brainer looking
from this perspective, but taking any another one would probably make it all
more difficult to leave. And while economically both approaches are in fact
sustained by free-work of their users, Facebook hugely profits from this, while
Wikipedia has built one of the most amazing knowledge-databases in the world
that is available to everyone, demanding nothing in return (sustaining itself
through contributions). It’s also a question whether one wants to be
included in decision-making process when it comes to the platform he’s
basically sustaining with his work - there are some options to influence decisions
on different levels on Wikipedia, but almost none on commercial platforms.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It’s quite depressing however, when
you see Google’s yearly profits are somewhere on the level of the whole
tax income of Republic of Slovenia (a silly example, but still), latter being
just another in the long line of countries going through painful austerity
measures recently, while Google formally employs around thirty thousand people
(and at the same time you read how a near 30% rise in revenues last year failed
to impress Google’s investors;)). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Jernej<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> Ekaterina Petrovna
[mailto:<a href="mailto:epetrovna@gmail.com" target="_blank">epetrovna@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 13, 2012 7:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jernej Prodnik</span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ICTs-and-Society] relation between political economy of
the media and cultural studies<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p>
</p></div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That's a very good point actually,as the analysis from the
perspective of political economy does not preclude the micro-analysis and
actually any good study of the media today should focus on the political
economy aspect. My point was that there seems to be a great division today
between critical approach: focussing on exploitation mostly and 'celebratory
cultural studies'. My point was that both pluses and minuses have to be taken
into account, both macro and micro and the analysis of popular culture (again I
refer to works of Fiske) seems to me to be a good example where there is a
serious analysis of the critique of exploitation and the response of ordinary
people to this exploitation. I quote Fiske:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Until recently, the study of popular culture has taken
two main directions. The less productive has been that which has celebrated
popular culture without situating it in a model of power....The other direction
has been to situate popular culture firmly withing a model of power, but to
emphasise so strongly the forces of domination as to make it appear
impossible for a genuine popular culture to exist at all...Recently,
however, a third direction has begun to emerge...It, too, sees popular culture
as a site of struggle, but, while accepting the power of the forces of
dominance, it focusses rather upon the popular tactics by which these forces
are coped with, are evaded or are resisted." (Fiske, 1989, p. 20)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My point was that we should maybe look more into this third
direction. Looking at facebook's users as passive dopes misses an important
fact about Facebook: it does do something in our lives, people love it (in
their majority) and while it is a capitalistic organization, it actually did
start as project in a student dormitory...Why, in fact, would people do a massive
exodus to something else? Why? And how alternative mediums would sustain
themselves?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for the reference to the book about surveillance,
- i will certainly read it!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal">Ekaterina Netchitailova<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Jernej Prodnik <<a href="mailto:jernej.prodnik@fdv.uni-lj.si" target="_blank">jernej.prodnik@fdv.uni-lj.si</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">just a short observation: both exploitation and commodification
actually have little do to with playfulness or having fun on the Facebook or
Twitter (or anywhere else, where these processes might occur). It’s not
what political economy analyzes and it’s actually not that important
question, because it’s simply not its subject matter. Which doesn’t
mean it’s not important. This is a common misunderstanding that has been
retained in cultural studies for decades now, for reasons unknown to me. But I
guess it stems from another misunderstanding - of what is actually the goal of
critique of political economy. It's definitely not to transparently moralize
about an ongoing world-situation and corruption of the ugly capitalists
(focusing on bad apples in an otherwise perfectly working system is, quite on
the contrary, approach of the non-critical economy), but to try to give an
explanation of an objective fact through means of abstraction (even if this
can, indeed, be fundamental ground for people's moral outlook and political
action, which was of course the underlying goal of Marx). Abstraction in the
given example meaning: if the system were in fact to function perfectly, would
capitalists still need exploitation? Of course, how else would they extract
surplus value? Both concepts, exploitation and commodification, are therefore
quite “technical” and don’t focus on the good and the bad
(... historically, conditions in the production process were of course
terrible, but Marx could’ve easily omitted these examples there are
plenty - from Capital and the argument in the abstract would be no different).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">These are quite different levels of critique you’re
mentioning, with different epistemological presuppositions, and there
weren’t so many authors that would successfully bridge this divide
(Vincent Mosco in his Digital Sublime being one of the celebrated exceptions).
There has been a huge debate in the nineties regarding these questions and I
guess most of the people, participating in it, simply got tired of it. But
cultural studies and political economy are not necessarily differentiated when
it comes to the macro/micro questions ... Neither commodification nor
exploitation are for example ‘macro questions’, they develop and
happen in everyday-life situations that actually need to be analyzed on the
micro-level, at least in the beginning, to construct a viable macro-theory
(besides, why joyful exploitation so easily occurs could be critically analyzed
on another, ideological level).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, to put it shortly: people can be exploited in the production
process even if they crazily enjoy what they’re doing at the same time.
Neither of these processes preclude people from rejecting these processes if
they find them worth struggling against - for example through making fun
out of Facebook in different Facebook groups. How effective the latter is
should be quite obvious though: it’s not. To put it in Marx’s
terms: they’re just writing about Facebook, but the point should be to
change it (if these people are so “critical” about it). And the
only way to stop exploitation by Facebook is probably a mass exodus from the
Facebook to another platform or to give as little information to FB as possible.
Making fun of Facebook in groups can actually even increase passivity and be
quite cynical.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I’m just finishing my review of the volume “Surveillance
on the Internet”, which includes some very good chapters from the
perspective of critique of political economy. You might find it interesting,
especially considering the fact these chapters mostly focus on the micro-level
to demonstrate how exploitation is carried out on social networks (mostly
through surveillance and data mining).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Michael, I guess you’re not talking about Marxist
understanding of materialism in this case?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> <a href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Ekaterina Petrovna<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 13, 2012 1:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Goddard Michael<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ICTs-and-Society] relation between political economy of
the media and cultural studies</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">why
Fiske would not be appropriate? While it is somewhat outdated, he gave an
excellent oveview, I think, of the relationship between domination (and culture
industries used for the purposes of indoctrination and domination) and popular
culture, where people engage in making culture industries 'their own'. Engaging
in a playful way on Facebook can be seen as an art of making everyday life, and
some instances of trickery on Facebook (like numerous pictures making fun of
Facebook as corporation) are an example of excorporation (Fiske, 1989). The
main point is that while political economy of the media is very important, how
users use the media in everyday life and what they think of it, should also be
taken into account. The problem with engaging only with critical approach and
political economy of the media is that the focus becomes too much on the
macro, ignoring the micro...Boyd's studies (2008, 2010), on the other hand,
focus, for instance, only on the user, ignoring totally the aspect of the
bigger picture (as David Beer rightly pointed out in one of his articles in
2008), - shouldn't we try to go somewhere in the middle?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
am not familiar, I have to admit, with materialist approaches towards the
media, - could you, please, Michael, give me some examples?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">best
regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ekaterina
Netchitailova (PhD student at Sheffield Hallam)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Goddard Michael <<a href="mailto:M.N.Goddard@salford.ac.uk" target="_blank">M.N.Goddard@salford.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Hello, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">While in agreement
with Ekaterina that a diversity of approaches, addressing ICTs and their users
on a number of scales, is desirable, I would question whether 1980s cultural
studies, especially in the work of Fiske is the best resource for this
diversity (Stuart Hall is a somewhat different case since he actually engaged
with information theory in such as a way as to leave something salvageable for
thinking ICTs at Matt Fuller has argued).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Other productive
lines of inquiry might include materialist media theories/media archaeology,
which while depoliticising in some instances, nevertheless provides useful
resources for a materialist account of media, media ecological approaches of
the post-Guattarian/Matt Fuller variety at least, that go well beyond concerns
with e-waste to engage with how specific media generate and interact with a
variety of milieux or, on a more pragmatic level some of the approaches
developed in the recent <i>Transgression 2.0 </i>collection which to engage
with network phenomena like the use of social media during the Arab Spring but
also problematise easy assumptions about what this means.......interventions
that in some cases might be understood as continuing the perspecitves of
autonomous Marxism and to strongly critique the more normative Frankfurt School
version of Marxist cultural critique that still seems dominant in many
political economy approaches.....just a few suggestions for pre-conference
discussion,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Michael Goddard</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Dr Michael N Goddard
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Lecturer in Media
Studies</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">School of Media,
Music and Performance</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">University of
Salford</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">MediaCityUk</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Salford</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">M50 2HE</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">UK</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Reviews editor of <i>Studies
in Eastern European Cinema</i> (SEEC)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Co-Editor of <i>Reverberations:
Noise, Affect, Politics, </i>Continuum, 2012</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align:center" class="MsoNormal" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net</a>
[<a href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion-bounces@lists.icts-and-society.net</a>]
on behalf of Ekaterina Petrovna [<a href="mailto:epetrovna@gmail.com" target="_blank">epetrovna@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 February 2012 21:21<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ICTs-and-Society] relation between political economy of the
media and cultural studies</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">by
looking at the abstracts for the conference in May in Uppsala, I see that the
main focus so far is on the political economyc of media (or critical studies of
media), which is actually the topic of the conference, but shouldn't we also
look at the theme of the relationship between the political economy of media
(more, macro-context from studies so far) and cultural studies (so, far, as
Christian Fuchs rightly points out it has been more 'celebratory cultural
studies of media" (2011). However, by focusing on both macro and micro at
the same time and by incorporating such works as John Fiske (1989), maybe we
could have a new perspective on media studies today? Fuchs (2008, 2010, 2011)
proposes abolishment of capitalism (quite an old proposition) or searching for
alternative media. The question, however, is: would the users of Facebook
actually switch to anything else (the answer is no...at least from my
ethnographic studies) and shouldn't we look at facebook itself for these kind
of alternatives? After all, recent examples (Arab Spring) show that facebook
can be used effectively for organising popular protests, - could Facebook be
used for a good cause also in other cases? And another question: by abolishing
capitalism, - which society do you envision? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Graham
Murdock says: "where users labour in their leisure time to boost
corporate profits" (from paper abstract, 2012) by looking at the use
of digital media. If we focus only on this perspective, aren't we in danger of
missing an important part of popular culture, as elaborated by John Fiske
(1989) and many others (Stuart Hall, etc)? The problem with focusing only on
marco context is that we can totally misunderstand the perspective of the user
(something which Christian Fuchs discussed in one of the articles with Dwayne
Winseck (2011). Users don't consider that they work for free for facebook when
they use it, - if anything they have fun and engage in many ways in
'trickering' Facebook (by organising many groups either against Facebook or by
making fun of it, on Facebook itself). Also what about the fact that many users
use Facebook actually at work (it was banned as a result in many workplaces,
but the application to use facebook through phones, somehow, overpassed this
problem)? Isn't in some way a kind of sabotage to capitalism in a trickery sort
of way?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Ekaterina Netchitailova (PhD student at Sheffield Hallam)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt" class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">Discussion@lists.icts-and-society.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net" target="_blank">http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>