Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 326
Netizens-Digest Sunday, August 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 326
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] An Example of Effective 'Net Activism
Re: [netz] An Example of Effective 'Net Activism
[netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
[netz] kmm063 II (was: Vixie to RBL NSI?
[netz] Re: Delays Accessing CSS Internet News
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bino Gopal <bino@rabi.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] An Example of Effective 'Net Activism
Hehe, see, now this is a message I can live with. Not an obvious
screaming advertisement for your list, but a more subtle, indirect
one--but that's ok! *grin*
What I mean is that there was actually some very intereting news in there.
The stuff about China and the attacks I hadn't heard about, and it was
informative and enlightening to read the details. You didn't have a huge
blaring advertisement header, and just had the stuff at the end in your
normal sig--I appreciate that. Like I said before, I like getting the
occasional forwards that you send, but the ones right before this were WAY
TOO excessive in reaction to Ronda's and other comments about spam/ads,
and I was beginning to feel upset...
Now, while the 4 line sig thing _is_ commonly accepted, since you provided
some meaningful info (which maybe people could discuss *hint, hint* :) it
doesn't bother me as much. Do you know what I'm trying to say? I hope
so, cause it's not a bash or anything, just an attempt to end this
bickering over this subject...I just hope that you send future pieces in
the same way, so we can avoid the arguments about it, and maybe discuss
the issues. Thanks much.
BINO
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:36:53
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] An Example of Effective 'Net Activism
At 03:48 PM 8/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Hehe, see, now this is a message I can live with. Not an obvious
>screaming advertisement for your list, but a more subtle, indirect
>one--but that's ok! *grin*
>
I noticed one post in which Rhonda stated she had been denied access
to an Internet related conference.
I wonder what would have happened if the organizers had received forty
or fifty thousand e-mail messages from Netizens asking why?
Net action does work....but we MUST organize.
I think you can understand when we're faced with issues like this I get
a little miffed at bitching over the length of a .sig file...yep it's
right below :-)
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:51:31 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
> > > > > IMHO, even the meaning of "information" doesn't need
> > > > > any discussion here.
...
> > What is at issue in any discussion of 'what we mean' -- such as
> > 'free flow of information' -- is *not whether the information can be
> > displayed by 1s and 0s;
>
> I agree. But that's something YOU started to talk about. But if you
> want to have a debate with yourself, feel free to do so. Just leave
> my name out of that.
1. Everything starts somewhere. 2. Everything also goes on
continuously. 3. It may not start where one *intends to start, but
the fun part is in 'synching' 1 and 2 so that the starting points also
go together continuously; or, if you like, so that any point is a
starting point.
If I misread your mentioning 1s and 0s, Im sorry, but, since they're
there, lets make what use of them we can: as starting points.
Already, you see, we have been able to agree that its in 'strings'
that meaning may reside. (Lots of people never get that far,
including engineers who confuse 'signal,' 'data,' 'information' and
sometimes even 'knowledge,' and especially those folks who think
that 'Some X is Y' is contradicted by 'Some Z is Y.')
> My point, anyway, whichever starting point you take, is that if don't
> define "information" in a very general way, the definition you give it
> does influence its free flow. Let's rather use the telecommunications
> vocabulary here. The equivalent of "information" would be "signal" and
> all the rest would be "noise". Now, how do you define what's "signal"
> and what's "noise" ?
I define it by using a discriminant. How do you define it?
To explain (for those who like explanations, even sometimes wordy
ones), I go on a little further with the idea of bits vs strings, which I
will expand by giving a 'direction' to:
5. There is always a 'lower level' to any specified ('higher level' of)
'meaning' 6. Meaning = discriminating A from ~A; e.g. 'signal' from
'noise.' 7. Discrimination acts between two elements on the *same
level (A and ~A have parity) -- but (in the languages I'm familiar
with, all Indo-European) one speaks of it in the same terms as one
does of two *different levels; e.g. higher and lower. 8. The
discriminant in this particular case is called 'context.' 9. Context is
time-dependent. 10. This is good shit,
> Would you be able to find a definition that
> would suit everyone on the Earth, regardless of cultural, political,
> etc... differences ? Say the idea some people here seem to have of
> information, which excludes statements of opinion and debate but
> allows for advertising, should be adopted, would you accept that ?
Understanding this shit is what everybody is doing on earth, all our
lives (pl). The Internet is bringing lots of people to the same
conclusion, simultaneously, coincidentally, and in almost as wide
a variety of speech as there are bodies. AFIAK, they all work, but
almost none of them work as *fast as their speakers expect; that is
(by 9), the context for understanding takes time, and (time not
being easy to understand) most folks get impatient, jumping from
'How does one define what's "signal" and what's "noise" ?' to
'How do *you...?' to 'Would *you be able to find something that
suits everyone (else)?' for instance, or from 'reasonable' to
'standard' for another instance.
This kind of conflation, of course, *seems to make the 'process of
understanding' take longer; but (as Vonnegut says) thats the way it
goes -- what it *is is the process of building context, but impatient
folks tend not to stick it out. Instead, if one answers the first
question (for instance, 'By context,'), the next q is likely to be 'Isnt
that just semantics?' If one answers the 2nd q, it gets pretty
longwinded ;-). Answering the 3rd q prompts 'ad hominem'
distractions (if in the affirmative, 'Who are you to tell others,' etc; if
in the neg, 'So you admit you dont have an answer, eh'?) which
almost never get *dealt with* to allow picking up the original topic.
In short, what 'suits everybody' is a pretty confused concept, and
one can easily spending 2 or 3k just to come to the point of
saying, 'I not only can find, but I herewith give to you, an answer
which suits everybody (just the same as their answers would suit
me), *once we are all clear that its 'open source' with a non-
exclusive license to practise*, and it may be handily referred to as
TYT: Take Your Time.'
But there, Ive gone and done it, and I hope you have as many
happy hours of tinkering with it as I have.
==========
> > ... the 'royal we' (as in "Do we want every
> > content to be freely distributed or do we prefer restrictions") is
> > figurative and not literal.
...
> Erm, why should I use the "royal we" instead of the other one ? If
> you are constantly reading wrong meanings into what others
say/write,
> I can understand that it is hard for you to believe that three people
> could understand each other.
>
I really do not know why anyone uses the royal we (more
commonly called the 'editorial we' in the US ;-)), but in this
particular case, why would one mean explicitly 'we three' when
we're barely getting the discussion underway? Isnt it, in its own
way, calling for a petition? And since the questioner is one of the
three, that amounts to asking, Do you two agree with me? before
we two know whether we even agree with each other.
So I could have said something like, "Personally, I think that the
restriction of content deserves a discussion,' but instead, I went
ahead and started discussing, and I did that by supposing that the
q was intended to mean, "If the means were immaterial, do we
Three Kings agree on the end?" and by then pointing out that the
condition is *meaningless, and that *real discussion deserves to
have some care taken with what conditions are being proposed
*especially when agreement is sought*. Again, I'm sorry that my
contribution struck you as out of line.
> > My idea is that one is addicted to *being prevented from stealing* --
> > doesnt this explain why people behave as if 'its ok unless you're
> > caught'?
>
> Are you serious there ? If people would be addicted to that, they'd
> turn themselves in to the police after stealing, instead of thinking
> it to be ok if they aren't caught.
Does anyone think the police are there to treat their addiction?
On the contrary, the police assume everyone is addicted and that
there is no treatment, only more prevention, aka oppression.
> > How can changing jobs be harmful?
>
> Hmmm.... I *hope* (for your sake) that this is sarcasm.
Look at our syllogism logically. You said if one isnt paid one will
change jobs and that *this is harm*. Assertion:
All job-changing is harmful. I replied, turning to something else is
perfectly normal and not harmful. Rebuttal: At least one instance of
is non-harmful job-changing exists. Therefore the *valid conclusion
is only that *some job-changing is harmful -- and indeed, one can
do oneself harm by almost anything -- but it does not follow that
changing that particular (shareware-writing) job is harmful.
(If you like, I can do the same analysis for the
> > Bomb recipes ...
> there aren't only recipes for bombs, but for all kinds of weapons).
argument. Let me know if you get stuck.)
> > The point, in the context of understanding one another, is that the
> > way you state the case conditions the others interpretation.
>
> Sure. And you seem to be very bad at not understanding... or, I
> suspect, rather very good at not understanding.
>
What if the conversational 'lowest level' is *identical to that of
'information -- what engineers (and many others) call Boolean logic?
Why shouldnt our mental 1s and 0s work the same way as the puters?
Why posit some unbridgeable chasm between the fields, when a)
people really can communicate logically if they try (TYT); b)
Occam's razor suggests we not add hypotheses unnecessarily;
and c) it suggests that the connection between ones own ideas
and hearing them expressed in other voices is a close one?
If the Internet is helping us think/ speak logically, is that so awful?
> <final sarcasms deleted>
TYT: think about them - Im not immune to sarcasm, but I try to
keep it pretty strictly limited. If there is something you dont
understand, by all means, lets discuss it. Particularly, if the only
way you can understand is by assuming it is a *spoof and that I
dont believe what Im saying, I hope you will help to find a way to
say it that works for you.
Alternatively, I'd like to learn more about how *assuming another
person's position helps one understand something. Can we
discuss that?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:51:31 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] kmm063 II (was: Vixie to RBL NSI?
II, Michael S!
> > The potential consequential damages are pretty
> > dramatic...
>
> This is precisely the sort of danger that the entire Internet will
> be running if ICANN (read "CORE and ISOC") controls the root.
>
> The best thing that can happen is that they implement their threat
> to black hole NSI. That will force the U.S. Government to see that
> the root must be maintained as a government service, beyond the
> reach of discriminatory special interests.
>
This is precisely the sort of proof that the entire Net has to be
conceived as self-governing. Certainly the best thing that can
happen is that NSI is RBLd, to make it clear that daddy (or
mommy ;-)) will not maintain the root _for us_ without making it
even more frustrating to deal with special interests.
We wanted free enterprise; we got free enterprise. Now if we want
an accountable government to make seriously wise decisions, we
have to do it ourselves and cut the sandbox chat.
Now I accept, getting there might well involve a coordinating board.
(In view of numerous modern political shenanigans, I would however
stipulate as a condition of holding office that *all ones rather than
going into immediate debt to the tune of $K/ day, why don't we
float an independent currency (e-ducats) on the basis of our real
stock in trade, the traffic in knowledge?
That is, the Net is the middlemanager, and rather than selling it out
to USG or anybody else it only needs to claim the niche that has
grown around it. The old concept of communication was that
everybody did it for themselves: A 'talked to' B and that was all
there was to it. What this continuing furore over pornography and
censorship and spam and civil liberties and so on reveals is that A
and B both much prefer to talk *through* C, to protect their
sensibilities - or, conversely, to disguise their intentions.
This is a service the Net, in all its manifestions and degrees of
reliability and consistency, is exquisitely positioned to provide.
Our client states out there who want their 'information' pure can
pay for the privilege; it does take a rather special breed of character
to be able to cope with the continual bombardment of unsolicited
sensory stimulation, and to take this responsibility on their behalf.
Naturally, there will be a sliding scale of services: the ordinary
Jo_6pak will hardly be able to afford the 100% insulation which
some governments and corporations (who can afford the lawyers to
comprehend the kind of contract that would be involved) would
likely demand. No, for say $10/mo of access/protection, most folks
will settle for a very simple contract, that even I could implement:
no hardcore, no blatant comeons, no INSTANT$$$ on one side,
and on the other, all the gen on guppies and their discontents
that's out there. Heck, I could probably manage a caseload of 20 or
30 clients even if I did it all longhand (which of course is hardly
necessary, but the image is one worth inculcating, like slaving
over a hot console).
And ol Jo_6p, who might come through with about 10 cents a day,
figuring to cope with the flood of mis/information on hys own? Hy's
our secret weapon, dont you see? Because, due to this app-
renticeship, this voluntary surfeit of info-exposure, *hy's going to
become just the kind of netizen who can take this same
responsibility on others' behalf. Hy'll *know what its worth to have
this kind of judgement beng exercised by somebody else instead
of DIY. All the II (Independent Internet) has to do is make it worth
Jo_6p's while to stick it out and win hys discriminating spurs
(aspirations/ apsaras/ aspersions, depending on context) rather
than diving under the umbrella of some dirt-spaced/ two-faced
employer or empire as soon as hy can afford it.
I may be wrong, but something tells me II is (am?) about ready to
go (that is *be) public. Oh, you want to know what tells me such
things? I'm happy to oblige -- and that'll be an e-ducat for you, too,
same as anybody. But (for free!) isnt it clear that 'Each one teach
one' is now a paying proposition?
II,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:51:31 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Delays Accessing CSS Internet News
Bino,
> > > Your statement about not sending 'any' extraneous material is just
> > > not true; the 4 line sig standard shows that.
>
...
> there is also this:
>
> "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer
> than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the
> minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay."
>
> -RFC 1855, Page 4
>
>
> Umm, so...what's the problem with saying a sig should be 4 lines again, as
> you did in your first reply to this? It seems a pretty reasonable
> criterion to me!
I'm pleased our common ground is so readily accessible. Indeed it
is *reasonable* to keep sigs short and to the point, just as it is still
worth remembering that some people are really desperately trying
to find value in the information available on the Net. But to reify
('concretize') reasonability as a "standard" without working through
just this kind of discussion is no better -- that is, reasonable -- than
John's pretending there is something to "vote" on regarding an
unexamined free flow if information.
The point here is, in miniature, the point Carsten and I are working
towards: "information" is shit unless and until one can *discriminate
real/ true/ useful/ valid/ new shit from spoof/ false/ useless/ invalid/
dated shit.
You wrote to John,
> since you provided some meaningful info (which maybe people could
> discuss *hint, hint* :) it doesn't bother me as much. Do you know
> what I'm trying to say? I hope so, cause it's not a bash or
> anything, just an attempt to end this bickering over this
> subject...I just hope that you send future pieces in the same way,
> so we can avoid the arguments about it, and maybe discuss the
> issues. Thanks much.
>
Since you got something that satisifed you (news, to pick from
the above list), you're happy to pay his price of just on 1K bytes
which are,* to you*, dated. Reasonable people can usually find
such a balance point -- but why call the process of *finding that
point 'bickering'? Doesnt that rather sound as if you *devalue the
process; that is, that *for you* finding that point is not worth paying
anyone anything for? Well, you may be right; but the thread here
has been addressing Netizens' responsibility, and if it hasnt been
said explicitly yet, it may not be too premature to suggest that part
of it is suspending ones own *individual judgement in favor of
helping others who may not even be aware they *can find a balance
grasp some of the complexities.
So I'm not saying you're wrong /etc to use a word such as
'bickering'; I'm asking: Why do you choose that word, in that
tense? What context does it facilitate for you? What discriminant,
in other words, are you demonstrating, so that we may learn from
your use of it?
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #326
******************************
