I have written and published on my blog, on Scribd, and on academia.edu, over a hundred pages (e.g. this 49 page article) summarising my reactions to the AIME project. I have received nothing at all in reply. One of its rewriters actually told me he was too busy rewriting the “report” to reply to objections, when the whole idea of the book and of its “rewrite”, so it is said, is to provoke and to take into consideration “protestations”. The “rewrite” thus should concern dissenting contributions or it is a lure. Or it is just business as usual comprising well-known allies such as Isabelle Stengers, Kyle McGee, and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro as officially accepted “contradictors”. Plus a few sceptical academics with tenure and the right publications, to show that one is “open” after all.
The correct reply to such invocations of democracy is to say: prove to us that you are diplomatic: don’t make us wait one or two years to see a “rewrite” that may or may not take into account our objections. We are sick of the attitude “don’t call me, I’ll call you” when we are addressed, if we are lucky enough to get a response, by a “diplomat” that we have certainly not elected and whose accountability is obscure.
I have done a lot of work on Bruno Latour over the last three years on my blog, and I have yet to see any “diplomatic” non-élitist, non-snob reaction from this population of Latourian workers.