[CIMC-working] some non-capitalist tech coops

[Ian Bicking]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Doug Morris wrote:
> Below are three tech coops that offer bandwidth and server space.

Servers can be acquired fairly easily and require no long-term 
relationship, but bandwidth always costs money -- someday that cost will 
probably become marginal, but not yet.  We could buy our bandwidth at 
normal rates -- the cost is not prohibitive -- but it is an ongoing 
cost.  A tech coop is just a way of moving that cost to someone else, 
who needs to be funded in some manner.  Many of them are funded through 
sympathetic companies -- most of them small (with the exception of 
LoudEye and perhaps SpeakEasy).  Even a single person could reasonably 
fund the server...

But the network servers are *the* most essential resource for Indymedia 
(that you pay money for).  Tech coops are useful and good, but in the 
long term I don't feel they are an appropriate solution for Indymedia as 
a whole -- shifting the most fundamental service (the website) to 
outside volunteers is not appropriate for Indymedia or the outside 
volunteers.

Creating a principled resolution about accepting funds, such that 
Indymedia won't have the resources to handle its own shit, seems 
irresponsible.  It's just a way of outsourcing the corrupting 
influences.  Maybe that outsourcing is a way of creating a firewall -- 
but it also reduces reliability.  And I'm suspicious of all 
outsourcing ;)

We need to balance purity with effectiveness -- not just with respect to 
tech funding, but in general.  Yes, there's risks of becoming coopted -- 
but that doesn't mean we should avoid all problematic situations.  I 
think this is a challenge we need to step up to, not avoid.


I'm not saying that you do feel we should avoid such situations, or that 
you're advocating an excessively strict standard; I just wanted to make 
note of my perspective on the situation.


   Ian