Decided to stop contributing to research conferences that aren't streamed online with free, open access. Otherwise you're just paying a hefty registration fee to restrict the number of people who can see your presentation. If the proceedings are open access then why not the conference itself?
@yaxu My experience this past year was really polarized. On the one hand: everything free and widely accessible (FOSDEM, LIMITS, NetGloW). On the other hand: join our association and pay a hefty registration fee (American Association of Geographers being the worst offender).
As the experience of the former was much better, I'm strongly considering to adopt the same policy.
@jboy It keeps leading to situations that don't make sense, like doing some work on proposing a nice interdisciplinary online research workshop as part of a conference, and being told all the participants would have to register for the main (disciplinary) conference for €€€s each, and that we'd have to use their platform for it. Just paying for restrictions really.
@yaxu what's your stance on recording/documenting events? Perennial memory seems a serious potential waste of [cloud] space but replay sometimes seems like an extension of open access...?
@gnozo If the talk was worth doing, it seems like a good idea to archive it alongside the paper on e.g. zenodo or archive.org.
I don't know what the environmental impact of that would be though, so it's a good question.
Really the whole idea of a paper as a 6+ page PDF, that you then 'deliver' as a talk inside 10-20 minutes, is kind of ridiculous.. So this all needs re-imagining.
@yaxu archive.org sounds like a cool idea! Wondering about interactions with Mastodon, too. I took part in my first academic conference last week, it's a strange world from the outside. I don't get how open access science can be "an issue" for some nowadays. Reimagining sounds good!
A fediverse community for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.