Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:47:22 +0200
From: John Anderson <panic-AT-semiosix.com>
Subject: Re: Anarcho domains?


At 03:02 24/8/00 , Larry Bekich wrote:
>on 8/23/00 2:59 PM, John Anderson wrote:
> >> http://www.anarchist.com/ (a "commercial" anarchist site!)
> >
> > What exactly is it about this site that makes it "commercial" apart from
> > the fairly irrelevant fact that it has .com as part of its domain name?
>
>Well, what's the mandate of the site?  If it is to sell books and other
>products, then it can be considered "commercial."  It seems to have more
>than a few of banner ads, so that's why I quickly came to this conclusion.

And because it's therefore a commercial site, it's not worthy of 
consideration, and cannot be useful in any way? OK, Ok, I'll stop being 
sarcastic now.

>Plus it LOOKS like a commercial site.

The way something looks is IMHO the very worst way to make a judgement 
about it.

>Why the folks behind this wish to
>replicate all that is bad with other lousy sites is beyond me.
>
>For example: the site is too busy.  Too much is packed onto the home page
>for it to be inviting.  The overall design seems to be tailored to 17"
>monitors--a real annoyance to anyone with 15" or less screen size (like me).

These are all valid points about web design - I dislike sites like this 
too. But I don't think they have anything to do with anarchy, or the 
commercial nature (or not) of the site.

>If this site is intended to attract those who are interested in anarchism
>then it ought to define itself better, clean up the clutter, and maybe even
>explain its own economic arrangement (collective, not-for profit, whatever).

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being said here. Here's my summary (which 
may well be wrong):

In order to be a 'properly' anarchist, a site MUST

- explain its own economic organisation
- have an economic organisation that isn't for-profit
- not use banner ads
- not look like a commercial site

and if it doesn't meet any of these criteria, then it isn't properly 
anarchist, which is BAAAAD (as in four legs good, two legs bad). And ought 
to do things differently. That word "ought" never fails to get my hackles 
up. Maybe oneday I'll learn to let it go past.

I'm puzzled as to why so many folks insist on promulgating the idea that 
there is "one true way". It turns things into an us vs them situation. This 
is a dynamic we learnt on the playground, and it's one of the things that 
prevents people from connecting with one another. So all that's happening 
is we're taking dynamics that underly the current order of thigns (which 
can also be called capitalism) and propagating them under another label. 
Public relations consultants get paid lots of money to relabel things 
without affecting the underlying dynamics.

bye
John