Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 331
Netizens-Digest Saturday, August 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 331
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
[netz] re: CSS Internet News posts
[netz] danger, safety, power (12k
Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:55:30 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
Kerry et al.
On 13 Aug 99, at 18:00, Kerry Miller wrote:
> Thank you, Jamal!
Pleased to be of service..
Was that substantive enough to keep you as a netizen? :)
I think that Ronda raised some incredibly important issues for people
involved in and on the Internet. I hesitate to use the word individual,
because some *people actually represent more than themselves (be it their
business, their "nation", their "ideas/ ideology" etc.). I think that the issues
that Ronda raised are perfectly worthy of discussion on this list. I just think
that John's posts are not the problem here. If they're taking up too much
bandwidth for columbia.edu's servers, then perhaps it is a problem. And I
don't know about that. But otherwise, I know where the delete key is. I've
also got a limiter on my mail software that stops me from downloading files
bigger than a certain size. So if it's too big, and I know it's not personal
mail, then I'll just delete it from the server, and not even have to pay to
download it!
Although this leads to some interesting debate. [Sorry to meta-chat here,
and I hope that it's useful.]
> I hope to see more consideration of the idea that the fundamental
> tension is between _danger and safety_ on the net.
I'm not sure I get you.. please take this a step further.. I can see there is
room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the net, but danger
and safety?
I think that John's postings just need to be interpreted in the way he
means.. Sure, they're advertising his service, but then so am I when I talk
about this stuff. [I mean, when I finally complete my thesis, I'd love you
guys to read copies! And who knows, on one of the lists I subscribe to,
there might be someone who knows about a vacancy in a university
somewhere...is this advertising? where do I stop?]
[...]
> more difficult problems. Indeed, one can point at practically any
> other bit of technological progress, and see that _concentrating
> the power to address problematic issues does not result in fewer
> problems, but more people with less experience to deal with them.
.. and the same goes for the Internet? I think so! (see above.)
I've been trying to think of such an eloquent way to put this for months!
Thank *you, Kerry!
- --
I've just reread your message again Kerry, and perhaps I can try to
paraphrase (and add to) this _danger/ safety_ relationship. Please correct
me, if need be (inevitable? probably!).
"Does The Internet Need Guardians?" That is, do we need someone to tell
us: "this is not right; you can't do this". If so, then where is the line drawn?
And doesn't this destroy, in essence the meaning of the communications
network that those pioneers so carefully put in place? I bet you they
weren't thinking along these lines, but Ronda will sure prove me wrong!
Why is it that every newsgroup, every webserver, every mailhub etc. must
have a single person that is in complete control? And what's more; I can't
see a way around it!
Is this safety or danger? The truth is that it is both! I am safe, because
there is always someone there who can recover my files, should I lose
them. Who can increase my disk-space when I need it, etc etc. BUT this
same person can choose NOT to do these things, and can also chose to
take on my identity, and access my mail! Okay, there might be the small
issue of legality (in some states), but who knows if my network manager is
checking my mail or not?
However, I think that this balance will be around for a long long time, and
the task at hand is to learn to appreciate it. It appears to me that there will
always be people "in control" (not just technical managers of computers
that merely allow our conversations, purchases, family pictures etc. flow
around the world, but politicians, cultural icons, parents etc.), and people
"under control" (in many differing ways, not simply in the literal sense).
People may be "in" and "under" control at the same time, but there is
always a power relationship going to be in play. I *think this is what you
mean, Kerry. For danger and safety, perhaps I would substitute "power".
Because power is both dangerous, and comforting.
To appreciate this delicate balance of power relations, we need to work out
roles in the Information Age. A kind of discussion about who does what and
*why*. And *this* is the real task of the netizens list. To work within the
bounds of reality (a-utopia, in a (and if the word makes) sense), to
approach the Internet in the spirit of Netizen-ness, to see how the global
communications network can be maintained, and improved, despite all the
challenges that face it.
I open this to the *whole list..
> kerry
best,
Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:05:59
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] re: CSS Internet News posts
I too am a bit surprised that Rhonda would have brought
this matter up again. I would appear that the consensus
is the same, the posts are of use to the list members.
I will attempt to reply to a few of your comments.
The excerpts are sent free of charge and are always on
topic. The snippets of other stories covered are always
included and a search on the Web should locate them.
The news portion is about one third of the actual news
letter.
Yes I do charge for the newsletter and for courses.
Yes that is how I make my living.
No, I do not usually accept outside advertising. I don't
really like having someone tell me what I can and cannot
say.
The Internet is changing rapidly. That's one of the reasons
the news letter is a daily publication.
This list and others are places to discuss events and issues.
However over that past few months I have observed a disturbing
trend by some governments to attempt to wage cyber warfare.
In the most recent series of attacks the Chinese Government
attempted to block access to certain ISP's because they hosted
a site not approved of by China.
This attempt to deny thousands of Netizens the right to access
the Internet cannot and will not be tolerated.
Those who wish to do more than discuss issues should feel free
to join the Net Action Group by sending a blank e-mail message to:
nag1-subscribe@egroups.com
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: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:44:57 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] danger, safety, power (12k
Jamal wrote,
> I'm not sure I get you.. please take this a step further.. I can see
> there is room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the
> net, but danger and safety?
...
> I've just reread your message again Kerry, and perhaps I can try
> to paraphrase (and add to) this _danger/ safety_ relationship.
> Please correct me, if need be (inevitable? probably!). >
...
> Why is it that every newsgroup, every webserver, every mailhub etc.
> must have a single person that is in complete control? And what's
> more; I can't see a way around it!
When one person is adequate to the job, why isnt that enough
reason to give one complete control? -- by which I do not intend a
rhetorical question, but to start the search for *reasons why 'when
you put it that way,' people start to get nervous.
My growing suspicion is that we (modern/ westerners) have cooked
our goose in a bath of extremism. As long as 'everybody' was in
the bath together, we didnt have to notice, but the Net has left a lot
of people feeling suddenly naked, and they respond (of course) with
ever yet more extremes -- that's how we got there to start with (Too
many cars? Build more roads. Are the roads comfortable and safe
and cheap? Get a(nother) car. Extremism knows no balance.)
Specifically, my 'danger and safety' was not intended as a
dichotomy, but a *spectrum: there is a long strand 'tensioned'
between those two characteristic ends, and most of our *natural
activities, as you say, reflect a balance point somewhere in the
middle. Most of our *acculturated activities, otoh, assert one
position and deny the balance. (Thus, for a mild instance, your
probabilistic surmise that a further contribution by me to this thread
would be a *correction. Why shouldnt it simply be a further
contribution? What does your phrasing say about your sense of
security in offering an interpretation of my post? *Where did our
sense of balanced communication (literally, correspondence) go?*)
> "Does The Internet Need Guardians?" That is, do we need
> someone to tell us: "this is not right; you can't do this". If so,
> then where is the line drawn?
...
> Is this safety or danger? The truth is that it is both!
Of course, as misunderstanding and misinterpretation are both
stimulating and discouraging, and announcements and advertising
and rants and questions are both informative and monotonous. The
step we want to take is _beyond the trivial and the 'just to
make sure' repetitive harangue that 'This message is at one end
while That one is way over there somewhere, *and that >>I<< know
the difference*.'
> However, I think that this balance will be around for a long long
> time, and the task at hand is to learn to appreciate it... People
> may be "in" and "under" control at the same time, but there is
> always a power relationship going to be in play. I *think this is
> what you mean, Kerry. For danger and safety, perhaps I would
> substitute "power". Because power is both dangerous, and
> comforting.
Interesting you should say that -- Im just finishing a longish piece
in which I define power as the ability to _cause without being
_affected (that is, by the _effect). At this point, its easier for me to
posit danger....safety as an 'objective' scale, and power as a
subjective judgement that situates a given event on the d...s line.
(Objective measures of power all fail one way or another, but at
least this approach lets us infer that if your balance point is further
out towards the dangerous end than mine, we are likely to say that
you have more power.)
> To appreciate this delicate balance of power relations, we need to
> work out roles in the Information Age. A kind of discussion about
> who does what and *why*. And *this* is the real task of the
> netizens list. To work within the bounds of reality (a-utopia, in a
> (and if the word makes) sense), to approach the Internet in the
> spirit of Netizen-ness, to see how the global communications
> network can be maintained, and improved, despite all the
> challenges that face it.
Is there a 'power relation' between oneself and one's words? The
danger I had in mind initially was that of being honest, of there
being *no question* of where one stands, of taking the time and
effort to re-present it to another -- in words, in this context. One
who displaces or overrides or ignores this relation (e.g. by laying
power off on some 'concrete' or 'established' authority) may feel
'safe' in viewing the net as 'just words' (or just pictures, to include
the MMX legions) with which one can say anything one wants on a
whim -- certainly without taking time to read what another may
have written with any idea of understanding *why.
Otoh, to treat words as dangerous -- powerful, if you like -- requires
a different perspective altogether: you and I, instead of verbally
*beating one another (with our browsers? ;-)), are now in cahoots,
trying to keep the verbiage under control so that we may catch a
glimpse of the thoughts that underlie it. Instead of throwing in any
word that comes to mind (Im tempted to put that phrase in ironic
quotes - but never mind), we proceed more carefully, laying an
Ariadnic trail that will take us back, if need be, to safety -- that is,
conceptually firmer ground where we have snipped and pruned and
pried and pondered until we have satisfied ourselves that no
*untoward critters lurk in the latticework/ds.
For the metaphorically challenged, I translate: instead of one, A,
focussing hys attention on the Other, B -- as if there is some
karma in 'convincing' hyr, or 'making' hyr change hyr mind, or as if
what A knows (which of course is everything *one needs to know)
is ipso facto what B needs to know -- A and B ('we' to be precise)
together _assume that someone else is listening (in fact we
*synthesise hyr), and C-for-Cyndie knows *nothing but what we can
tell her. Can A get her to accept just A's side of the story? Not with
B there, so rather than destroy her intellect (by saying either
nothing, or everything, higgledly-piggledy) we offer a spectrum of
ideas, and C makes up hyr own mind: perhaps entirely on A's
'side,' or on B's, more likely adopting hyr own balance point in the
middle somewhere, but surprisingly often, *discovering a position
(or p.o.v., or stance, or view as you prefer) which neither of us
would have found *either by ourselves or by confrontation with one
another*.
The idea of demonstrating this spectrum with danger and safety is
just a recent example. Whether you 'meant' 'your' words to be
'taken' that way is irrelevant to my seeing the possibility -- my
thanks were not for *telling me what to think, but for providing the
thread on which I could dangle an idea, and your thanks (re
eloquence), I trust, were not for giving you a quotable quote, but for
the idea that laws and strictures and ultimata and unsupported
assertions serve to concentrate 'power' --
====
<Ok, here's the key, but you have to be back in 5 minutes!>
====
- -- which is to say, in our spectral metaphor, they serve to put some
Annointed/ appointed person 'in charge' or as a lookout up the
tracks (towards Danger) while the rest of us stay back where it's
Safe. It is this _dichotimization which I believe infects Net
discourse and which needs to be, as you say, *worked out*,
although I am not very happy with 'roles' and 'who does what and
*why*.' (Lists are not spectra.) Isnt the essence of the Net its
dynamism, its _potential to let anyone do (yes, and say) anything?
I can be sharp and sarcastic one minute, and tediously longwinded
the next -- is that a *role? What's the need for anything beyond a
pointer, such as 'That's Kerry' <shrug>?
Which drops us neatly back into <ta-da> The John Walker Case.
You wrote,
> "Does The Internet Need Guardians?" That is, do we need someone to
> tell us: "this is not right; you can't do this". If so, then where
> is the line drawn?
I used to draw lines -- still do, when I need to see what Im thinking
about, to pin down what I know so I can dissect the bits of
uncertainty that fuzz over my mental acuity and make
comprehension (holding on to an idea) difficult. Architects and
engineers understand that lines 'create space' -- -- but even they
rarely take up the idea that they create time as well, and that by far
the most important lines in our life*time are temporal: _start and
stop_ concentrates (defines) power quite as much as _here and
there_ do. When one says 'you can't do this' the intention is not,
'you didn't do it just now' or 'you aren't doing it just *now' but, "It
aint gonna happen *now and forever*" -- but I have to wonder about
these forever-minded folks. Do they know something I dont? Is
there a designer-fountain of youth? Or are they merely 'trying it on'
in hopes that the perp *believes that they can come back to bite
him, down the road an eon or two? In a word, what makes this
particular line *binding?
> And doesn't this [line-drawing] destroy, in essence the meaning
> of the communications network that those pioneers so carefully put
> in place?
Just so. On the internet, as in the mind, there are no lines; there
are only one's *memories of lines. To avoid unilaterally *reifying or
projecting them onto an interpersonal, shared communication
space is, imo, "the real task of the netizen(s list)," and the obvious
place to start is to understand how one's own language is
conditioned and affected by lines in every direction -- but in the
particular case, by the culture of extremism.
Instead of debasing the language, then (by using it in ways we
*know we don't and cannot mean), what if we try to say what
we mean -- and can defend? For instance, I have no problem at all
with someone's saying, 'dont do it now (while Im here, please),' or
'dont do it or I'll turn off your privileges and you'll have to find
somebody else to turn em on again' because the the lines are
defensible; that is, they are *actionable statements: the first as an
appeal to reciprocity, the second as an appeal to authority as list-
owner, for instance). But neither of these draws a line in any
*problematic way; the distribution of power is not changed. And in
place of the hypothetical ('futuristic') 'if we let one do it, etc'
argument, why not just stick with the *present, and say 'That's
John' <shrug>?
The only reason I can see is that *(other) people just dont
understand* -- and the incredible challenge of the Internet is
learning how to help 'other people' change their minds. But the one
thing that A (above) *needs to know (but, of course, doesnt) is
*how* to change a mind -- never mind B's or C's, I'm talking about
the one that's right on hand, hyr own. (Get good at that, and you'll
have other people sitting at your feet, paying you to change their
minds for them, no problem!) The fascinating thing is, one doesnt
often know one's mind has changed until one meets others which
have not -- that is, one doesnt know what a risk it looks like *to
them*.
kerry
"There's no method or remedy to make changes overnight.
Whether a person or family is religious or not, we need some
way to promote human values, which I call secular ethics."
--14th Dalai Lama in NYC
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 22:14:54 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
Kerry wrote:
>Jamal wrote:
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> > Please correct me, if need be (inevitable? probably!).
> ...
> > Why is it that every newsgroup, every webserver, every mailhub etc.
> > must have a single person that is in complete control?
>
> When one person is adequate to the job, why isnt that enough
> reason to give one complete control? -- by which I do not intend a
> rhetorical question, but to start the search for *reasons why 'when
> you put it that way,' people start to get nervous.
</color>Is there a technical reason for this? I'm sure that there is. "Democraticians"
(if there are such people) must find this idea anathema, however. It does
seem strange, (and I think one can see the ICANN debate here) that
questioning of the necessity for a single authority (rather than simply of
ICANN, or the USG) is not being carried out on this list.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>
> Specifically, my 'danger and safety' was not intended as a
> dichotomy, but a *spectrum: there is a long strand 'tensioned'
> between those two characteristic ends, and most of our *natural
> activities, as you say, reflect a balance point somewhere in the
> middle. Most of our *acculturated activities, otoh, assert one
> position and deny the balance. (Thus, for a mild instance, your
> probabilistic surmise that a further contribution by me to this thread
> would be a *correction. Why shouldnt it simply be a further
> contribution? What does your phrasing say about your sense of
> security in offering an interpretation of my post? *Where did our
> sense of balanced communication (literally, correspondence) go?*)
</color>Because correction is part of the communication process. I learn by my
mistakes, and when I'm writing a message to a substantial-sized list (last
time I heard), I want to make sure that I'm not misinterpreting your words.
Because I wouldn't take offence to a correction; because my sense of
security (as you put it) was cautious about 'putting words in your mouth'.
Because I think that my interpretation of your post B (for lack of a better
term B[1]) was an attempt to increase my understanding of what you had
said. Inevitably, there would be something lost in transmission (signal
degradation?). I just wanted to make sure that you understood my
vocabulary, and that your meaning was essentially untouched.
But I note that later in your response you mention that "Whether you
'meant' 'your' words to be 'taken' that way is irrelevant to my seeing the
possibility", so it doesn't matter whether my interpretation was your
meaning or not, does it? Does this make my response from your post
modulate from B[1] to C?
In this case, how do we get anywhere? Except stuck at [Z]. !
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> (Objective measures of power all fail one way or another, but at
> least this approach lets us infer that if your balance point is further
> out towards the dangerous end than mine, we are likely to say that
> you have more power.)
</color>Please explain? Why is power closer to danger than safety? I'm not sure
where we are going here Kerry, but it sounds like we're digging a garden
with a sheet of paper. My assertion (oops!) was that your spectrum of
d...s could be replaced by the one concept of power. I'd like to take a look
at a copy of your paper if it goes online. Please let me (or the list) have the
url.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>>
> > To appreciate this delicate balance of power relations, we need to
> > work out roles in the Information Age. A kind of discussion about
...
> Is there a 'power relation' between oneself and one's words? The
> danger I had in mind initially was that of being honest, of there
> being *no question* of where one stands, of taking the time and
> effort to re-present it to another -- in words, in this context. One
> who displaces or overrides or ignores this relation (e.g. by laying
> power off on some 'concrete' or 'established' authority) may feel
...
</color>Now why is it dishonest to "lay power off on some.. 'established'
authority"? I don't see how I cannot work within certain dimensions
*previously determined* - cyberspace or no cyberspace, I always have to
work within a predetermined framework, which I can bend and perhaps
break sometimes, but never ignore. Or am I just too 'traditional'?
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>
> whim -- certainly without taking time to read what another may
> have written with any idea of understanding *why.
</color>I'm trying!
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> *beating one another (with our browsers? ;-)), are now in cahoots,
> trying to keep the verbiage under control so that we may catch a
> glimpse of the thoughts that underlie it. Instead of throwing in any
...
> would have found *either by ourselves or by confrontation with one
> another*.
>
</color>I like this metaphor! And I am *trying to keep my words to a carefully
thought-out minimum. And the second part is just begging for someone to
play the C- role.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> thanks were not for *telling me what to think, but for providing the
</color>I hope that you realise I wouldn't even dream of this. And I think that my
following sentence ("Was that substantive enough to keep you as a
netizen?") should have revealed this to you. I was simply noting the fact
that in your previous post, you mentioned something about not wanting to
be on a list that was solely for announcements and assertions.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> thread on which I could dangle an idea, and your thanks (re
> eloquence), I trust, were not for giving you a quotable quote, but for
> the idea that laws and strictures and ultimata and unsupported
> assertions serve to concentrate 'power' --
</color>yes.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> although I am not very happy with 'roles' and 'who does what and
> *why*.' (Lists are not spectra.) Isnt the essence of the Net its
> dynamism, its _potential to let anyone do (yes, and say) anything?
</color>[now I'm also writing after reading a page on your site, Kerry:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/g9/pie1.htm.]
Unfortunately, I can't see how cyberspace redefines politics *essentially*,
which is I think, the point you are trying to make. It is politics that you are
talking about? I mean, the words conflict, consensus, compromise, debate
etc. can all be found in undergrad textbooks on political science.
And let us not forget that cyberspace is rooted in reality. I do not "live"
online as separate from my existence offline. I am me. Granted, I can be
*anybody on the Internet, but that is always going to be related to the
offline me (even if only I know it).
Politics as rigidity has been around for a long time. What we see in the
current trends of the Internet's development also leads to a recognition of
politics as rigidity continuing.
The Internet, imho, doesn't change the fact that discussion occurs in *real-
time. The Internet facilitates communication between individuals. This list
(as well as others) is like a chat-show on a radio. I dial-up and give my
opinion. Someone else does the same. There's a conflict, and perhaps
agreement.
What do others (shrugging responsibility ;), but unfortunately time is
running out for me tonight) think about Kerry's "real task of the netizens
list"?
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> Just so. On the internet, as in the mind, there are no lines; there
> are only one's *memories of lines. To avoid unilaterally *reifying or
> projecting them onto an interpersonal, shared communication
> space is, imo, "the real task of the netizen(s list)," and the obvious
> place to start is to understand how one's own language is
> conditioned and affected by lines in every direction -- but in the
> particular case, by the culture of extremism.
</color>Best regards,
Jamal
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #331
******************************
