Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 241
Netizens-Digest Saturday, January 9 1999 Volume 01 : Number 241
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Representation in Cyberspace
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] The Internet as the foundation for needed research
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:13:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Representation in Cyberspace
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote:
>Equal influence is simple, is it? But how do we sort out who is who? Can
>we all trust each other in cyberspace? Okay this problem occurs in real
>life as well, but it is much easier to deceive in cyberspace at the
>present time. What does this lack of trust do to the concept of equal
>influence? I think it affects the 'digital divide' (between
>technologically aware, and plain and simple users) tremendously. This is
>just one example which I guess you could design a solution to, but more
>importantly is the fundamental concept behind it...
I think the issue is somewhat more subtle than just trust of individuals.
Even assuming that we can all trust each other, there is the issue of
deciding the truth (or relevance) of information that's being presented.
For example, let me take a point that has been widely debated in these
proceedings:
Internet access was available to members of the public who did not
have an R&D association with an Internet funding agency.
This question can be answered many ways, depending on what you consider
to be "the Internet," "members," "the public," "Internet funding agency,"
etc. The answers are also dependent on time and location.
Point of view is very crucial here, but it is not something that can be
quickly expressed. If someone feels they have not gotten their point
across, after thousands of emails, they may be inclined to give up,
even though the information they are presenting is both true and relevant.
This problem is certainly not unique to online discourse, but online
discourse may make it difficult for certain types of points of view to be
expressed.
Regarding trust, I don't know how much people on opposite sides of the
"digital divide" trust each other. I have seen some evidence in the
archives of the IETF, IAHC, and gTLD-MoU lists that there was significant
distrust of Postel and other IANA members by several individuals, because
actions that Postel took were considered suspicious in light of the impact
they had. In the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions (e.g.
redirecting root servers to his server) might have been considered
harmless. In the context of today's Internet, they were not. Actions
such as those hurt Postel's reputation and gave more credence to the
groups who were in opposition to Postel.
I don't think there is any technological solution to this problem.
IMHO, it's not so simple as to just try to classify issues and then find
or create an appropriate "place" for the issues to be debated. The issues
are not so clearly spelled out.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:13:46 -0800
From: "richard bohn" <richard-bohn@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Kerry Miller's recent posing of the question , ..."is it time to bring
....these 'artsy' perspectives together ", left me feeling queasy. There
seemed to be the scent of embarrassment in Kerry's own perspective towards
'humanists'. The "perspectives" , I assume you are referring to Kerry, are
those who see humanity as an interconnected family. Interconnected from
synapse to cell, psyche to cyber society.
I joined the netizen mailing list out of a desire to participate within a
community of world citizens motivated by deep hope. Hope nurtured by the
birth of this global communication tool which might allow us all to
transcend centuries of antagonistic dialectics, yet, I have watched Rhonda
pound upon Mommy and Daddy's door, sobbing to be let in the Great Big House
for months. I don't know how many other kids are standing outside the gate
watching this conversation between maybe,only 3 or 4 voices , but, Gosh,
can't we be a little more inclusive and playful here?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:19:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] The Internet as the foundation for needed research
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>There really needs to be a research institute devoted to this,
>but I have found that the attack by commercial forces is so
>great it is even hard to get papers accepted at conferences
>(like for example the Internet Society conferences) nevermind
>get any support for the kind of research that recognizes the
>importance of the Internet and the need to study and research
>what its needs are and what it makes possible.
>Thus the Internet is treated very different from the computer
>it seems, especially now. It is used and abused, but not
>cared for or recognized by the powers that be.
>However, hopefully this will all change once folks realize that
>the Internet is an important human-computer-computer_communication
>symbiosis and as such it needs care and support and understanding,
>rather than power plays and strip mining.
Jamal made an interesting (imho) point in his post, which was basically
to ask how important the Internet is to people and what do they want to
do with it.
I think ultimately, the issue of privatization of Internet resources will
be decided according to what the people (all of them) who use the Internet
want to do with it.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:09:57 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Jamal,
{
{ In the end, it all goes back to what we want to conceive of as the
{ Internet; where does it fit in real life, and how should we use it?
...
{ Splitting issues is fine, and I agree with you here, Kerry, that this
{ would be useful. But I am uneasy because part of me feels that this
just
{ leads to lots of talking-shops, and subsequently to a dismissal of the
{ Internet as central to the driving force of globalisation (critics
would
{ decide that the Internet has no political force), and thus leaving the
{ restructuring of political affairs at a fundamental level as an idea
that
{ was half carried out.
Any time you fail to account for the fundamentals of a problem, you're
going to have a half-baked solution which creates new problems which are
even more complicated to deal with.
I really like my coffee with cream - but I rarely drink it, so the half-
pint of cream in the fridge usually sours before its finished. Rejecting
the 'easy' answer (drink more coffee!), I've been conducting an
experiment: the data so far show the present container is still unsoured
after six weeks -- because Ive spooned the cream out rather than using
the built-in pour spout.
If I insist that I have a right to use the spout *and* have unclotted
cream, I can solve this problem by buying cream more often and throwing
away half of it. Or I can 'split the issues' and weigh the value
(convenience) of spout-usage against the value of keeping cream
indefinitely (that is, of changing a late-acquired extravagant habit or a
deep-seated conservative one) and *test*, over time, which works best for
me.
I get the impression ICANN prefers the pour-spout: the Net is so
*convenient* for business, its worth wasting a potful of free speech and
dialog and self-governance and social whatnot. In my impecunious fashion,
I incline to keep the cream (and put up with the overhead of another
spoon to be washed) but the issue is, *which way preserves the options*?
The ICANN process apparently assumes that the communicational contents of
society are in infinite supply, and need not be preserved, but from an
*experimental point of view this is utterly rash. I think civilization
is a hard-won concept (I almost said commodity ;-)), and value its
preservation more highly than any one *product of it -- or the sort of
container it may come in.
==========
{ Isn't this discussion list an example of channeling?
Sure, but let's go furhter: this one post of yours has some 128 lines
reflecting serious thought, with 14 questions that could well become
separate channels of their own.
{ I don't know if the technicalities of this
{ channeling can even be approached, however,as we have to figure out the
{ rules for the framework. I'm not confident in the rationality of
{ humanity to be able to define and stick to a certain framework.
Technicalities? Homo sap processes this much data all the time, albeit
clumsily, but some rules have been 'figured out' - wouldnt they be a
pretty good guide?
{ Doesn't this framework require some kind of a hierarchical structure?
And
{ in that case, wouldn't it need people who would be able to say "this is
{ good for you" at the top?
That's putting the pourspout ahead of the cream, imo.
{ In terms of content, it is universally accessible
{ (how geographically disparate is this discussion list?). This presents
a
{ problem to the approach which you advocate Kerry, as global
communication
{ can affect all its participants, but leave them stuck in their channel,
{ powerless to do anything about it.
The engineers among us call this 'scalability' but as an experimentalist,
I 'breadboard' at a small scale first, and build up. As for being stuck,
isnt that an artifact of our software? As you say, crossposting is one
way out; taking time to answer questions *knowing that each reply will
take more time again* is another.
{ This
{ is also why the state is being questioned now (global environmental /
{ economic / communication flows). Could intercommunity politics operate
{ in a moral vacuum? I don't think so, therefore it is difficult to
{ compare the
{ state and the community. It is therefore difficult to describe virtual
{ communities as political entities. But that doesn't mean that politics
{ doesn't take place around and in them!
{
Have you seen
http://www.plattsburgh.edu/robbinrh/legacy ?
The question is a good one: global comm is a real threat to the concept
of 'state', and that in and of itself is a compelling reason for self-
governance.
{ > isnt it time to 'delegate'
{ > the process to nice net-friendly hardware?
{
{ Designed by whom?
Another q to put on the list ;-)
Check out the centre for computing and social
{ responsibility (CCSR at De Montfort University, UK) -
{ http://www.ccsr.cms.dmu.ac.uk
Thanks!
==========
Returning to the fundamentals:
{ Equal influence is simple, is it? But how do we sort out who is who?
Can
{ we all trust each other in cyberspace? Okay this problem occurs in real
{ life as well, but it is much easier to deceive in cyberspace at the
{ present time. What does this lack of trust do to the concept of equal
{ influence?
Don't we *learn to trust each other, regardless of the medium, by
working together? As long as we insist that the inconsequentiality of
our cyberspatial 'free' speech is more important than its content, can we
expect anything but deception and foolery? We like to speak of
'responding' here, but not of responsibility - but is that in itself a
reason not to build a mechanism in which ones participation *can* have
consequences?
Now (noting that my point (c),
{ that this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is {
required.
was not taken up), such a mechanism will have to do what we do for
ourselves routinely: *suspend (not terminate) the opportunity for new
inputs (criteria) while proceeding to draw interim conclusions (ICs) on
the basis of the data we do have. On the basis of IC #1, we then
reexamine the field for new inputs, and draw IC #2, and so on, until
either there is no new input -- which implies no report of inconsistency
in the extant data. At that point, we declare a 'decision.'
'Of course', you say, 'some external factor ( such as another problem,
changed ranking of extant problems, or a deadline) may interfere with
this process' -- but is that interference or just a different *scale* of
application of the same routine? (None of our decisions are made in
vacuo; external factors are our meat and drink or there'd be no need for
decisions at all!) That is to say, 'input data' is largely *previous
decisions* (and the inconsistencies between them), just as our
'decisions' are largely revisions of prior data. In short, the process
is a highly reflexive (cybernetic') one.
IPL, one tries to keep ones life 'organized' (= compartmentalized) so
that we dont have to keep juggling all this continuously (I suggest this
is the reason for the creation of the state, just as its a reason for
creation of the family or community), and 'how we think we think' is
highly conditioned by the *institutionalized* structures which separate
data/ inputs from decision/ outputs.
In information-space, such structures are absent. But we not only *can
learn to think without a 'given' framework; we do it all the time -- in
communication. Do you and I 'sort out who is who' before we speak? Do we
demand some symbol of trust before we reply? No, these are simply aspects
of 'getting along' which emerge from the creative process of mutual
understanding.
Certainly some have concluded that we must impose an 'administrative'
structure from 'outside,' (censorship or hierarchy or authority) but I'm
convinced this is a short-sighted and wasteful approach that derives
entirely from a faith that all 'real' problems have been solved, all
thoughts have been thunk. What passes for civilization then does not
address any *human reality, but is only a collection of salted-down,
'ordered' issues -- dont ask if the cream is sour, but check the 'expiry'
date. Don't even pour it out, but dump the carton in the trash. Dont
think about it; use soy substitutes that last forever!
I'm going on too long, but to see this happening to communication itself,
as if it has been determined that people have nothing to learn from one
another around the world is frightening -- not because some Octopus or
Illuminati is setting it up that way, but because we who could be
learning appear to prefer their already having done so!
(Jon Katz wrote a nice piece the other day ('Luring the Lurkers') but
failed to see that the vocal minority who fill this space are as
*responsible for large numbers of folks never saying anything as the
lurkers who might wish for a more open and congenial atmosphere are for
surrendering it to the ranters. That is, *both* groups are stuck in the
authoritarian mindset. Interesting too is that many listservers no longer
report how many subscribers are on a list, so even the 'friendly
hardware' is rigged to support a top-down diktat of 'what users really
want.')
============
{ [Plug: The development of the net and changing patterns of governance:
a
{ study of the relationship between the state and the Internet (RGS-IBG,
{ Leicester, UK: January 1999).... (I hope to put it up on a website
soon).]
I'd like to see it - and I have webspace at
www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/intro.htm
if you wish .
kerry
P.S. Are you familiar with Paolo Freire's writing?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:09:59 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Ronda,
{ There are various models one can use to figure out how to make
{ decisions. However, as the Internet is a unique new medium of
{ worldwide communication, it is important to consider what means
{ have grown up with or as part of the Internet that can be helpful
{ in solving this problem.
The net is uinique only in that it is a communication medium which came
out of technical left field, with minimal social context. Commerce of
course has been quicker to see the potential in its own field, but
neither engineers nor businesspeople are thus automatically qualified to
develop a socially functional model. In your role as a (net-)historian,
you are well able to grasp this; but where are the psychologists, the
sociologists, the anthropologists, the humanists generally?
{ CP Snow and other computer pioneers in 1961
{ talked about the need to spread far and wide discussion on important
{ policy matters
After 30+ years in the doldrums, is it time to 'reinvent' netizens as a
forum to bring these 'arty' perspectives together on an activist agenda?
kerry
P.S. Joe Lambert's "Memory & Machines" at
http://www.storycenter.org/memory1.html
is not altogether irrelevant.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:31:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Ronda wrote:
>{ There are various models one can use to figure out how to make
>{ decisions. However, as the Internet is a unique new medium of
>{ worldwide communication, it is important to consider what means
>{ have grown up with or as part of the Internet that can be helpful
>{ in solving this problem.
>The net is uinique only in that it is a communication medium which came
>out of technical left field, with minimal social context. Commerce of
This is some of where I disagree.
What I have found is that the social power of the Internet has come
out of not only someone developing technology, but out of a vision
for a different world that guided the pioneers who worked on this
development.
Three of the papers I have now at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers
describe the this vision as part of the kinds of discussions that
went on online on both the early arpanet (see the msggroup paper)
and the early usenet (see the usenet paper) and now as well
(the most recent paper).
That the support for basic research which grew out of the Vannevar
Bush's work and led to the support for ARPA and also Bell Labs
research fueled these important social developments.
That people are now working under very tight political conditiosn
so the vision isn't always being announced now, and in fact,
there is a suppression of it as well by the journals and other means
where commercial folks dominate.
But I have found that my researching the technological developments
have helped me to understand both the vision and the development
that is so important, and not at all as some unthought about achievement.
For example in working on my most recent paper I learned that
tcp was created in response to the kind of centralized domination
of the Internet that the kind of technology that built the arpanet
created (a central subnet which controlled all) while tcp
is built on recognizing and supporting the autonomy of the
nets that would connect to it and would welcome all to connect.
That the cooperative practices that helped to make the net developments
possible grew out of the design principles - i.e. that the
interface had to be designed by those using the interface, not
planned outside of them for them as the commercial world functions.
I don't have time to write more now but this is an important
issue so I hope to be able to respond further later.
Thanks for bringing this all up.
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 17:09:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Kerry,
> Technicalities? Homo sap processes this much data all the time, albeit
> clumsily, but some rules have been 'figured out' - wouldnt they be a
> pretty good guide?
Yes, but would we (as a virtual community, where we are placed in
situations where we know that we will probably not meet each other face
to face) stick to these rules?
This needs elaboration - and focus, as I *think* Greg says in a later
posting.. shall this become a different thread? (One of 14?)
> { Doesn't this framework require some kind of a hierarchical structure?
> And
> { in that case, wouldn't it need people who would be able to say "this is
> { good for you" at the top?
>
> That's putting the pourspout ahead of the cream, imo.
Please explain Kerry, as I'm not too sure what you mean here - was my
original statement unclear? Our 'net-hardware' is not sentient, and would
require someone/ organisation to determine the nature of the framework,
wouldn't it?
> The question is a good one: global comm is a real threat to the concept
> of 'state', and that in and of itself is a compelling reason for self-
> governance.
Self-governance? I know what you mean, but don't you think it's a bit of
a joke? (Am I playing devil's advocate here?) Self-governance is what big
corporations want (content wise), and look what that's getting us into.
However, this is what I am working on at the minute, (concept of state in
the era of the Internet), but I don't see self-governance as a feasible
alternative model (unfortunately).
> Don't we *learn to trust each other, regardless of the medium, by
> working together? As long as we insist that the inconsequentiality of
> our cyberspatial 'free' speech is more important than its content, can we
> expect anything but deception and foolery? We like to speak of
> 'responding' here, but not of responsibility - but is that in itself a
> reason not to build a mechanism in which ones participation *can* have
> consequences?
Good point - but what, and how? Presently, netizens is merely a
"discussion-list", with active members all involved in the
development of the Internet in some way. How many members does netizens
have? Could netizens as a community work within the ICANN structure -
instead of one or two interested individuals?
> Now (noting that my point (c),
> { that this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is {
> required.
> was not taken up), such a mechanism will have to do what we do for
I'm going to have to look at this again, Kerry. Sorry for not picking up
on it.
> IPL, one tries to keep ones life 'organized' (= compartmentalized) so
> that we dont have to keep juggling all this continuously (I suggest this
> is the reason for the creation of the state, just as its a reason for
> creation of the family or community), and 'how we think we think' is
> highly conditioned by the *institutionalized* structures which separate
> data/ inputs from decision/ outputs.
Good point, and I think that's why there needs to be some serious
research done on how the Internet affects this.. There's a conference in
Washington in April, the cfp99 (www.cfp99.org). Maybe some of us should
get together and organise a panel or something?
> Certainly some have concluded that we must impose an 'administrative'
> structure from 'outside,' (censorship or hierarchy or authority) but I'm
> convinced this is a short-sighted and wasteful approach that derives
> entirely from a faith that all 'real' problems have been solved, all
> thoughts have been thunk. What passes for civilization then does not
> address any *human reality, but is only a collection of salted-down,
> 'ordered' issues -- dont ask if the cream is sour, but check the 'expiry'
> date. Don't even pour it out, but dump the carton in the trash. Dont
> think about it; use soy substitutes that last forever!
...
> (Jon Katz wrote a nice piece the other day ('Luring the Lurkers') but
I was a lurker for a long time, on this list and many others (still am on
some). I felt that I was 'intruding' (Richard, please take note), and then
I realised that "I, too, could join in the fun", by providing some input
into how and what we perceive the Internet to be. There is a hierarchy
there, but it *can* be overcome, if we realise that the Internet provides
us with opportunities that we cannot receive in our pre-formed social
structures. My concern is that the structures we see in real life (I hate
this distinction, but feel it necessary to use it here) will merely become
replicated, or reproduced in other forms... our task (im[h?
- -definitely]o), is to try to ensure that lurkers *don't* feel as though
they are intruding on pre-defined communities - open structure..
fundamental to Internet architecture??
Perhaps we need to take the opportunity that the Internet gives us to
redefine "civilisation" - ask why do people prefer to be given their ideas
already? Is it because netizens, and other ideas/insititutions like it are
the minority? I'd love to get a hold of the figures for the netizens
list, please tell me the listserv command for doing so.
> P.S. Are you familiar with Paolo Freire's writing?
No, but I will look him up.
That's all for now.
- --Jamal
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #241
******************************
