Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 446
Netizens-Digest Thursday, March 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 446
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:27:04 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
The thread seems to exemplify both the pitfalls and certain potentials
of freewheeling analogies. I want to see whether I have any
understanding of what people intend to be arguing. What follows may
verge on caricature, but I'm more groping for models than for precise
characterizations.
Howard and Larry may believe, inter alia, that "spam" is "push
communications" that sends an unsolicited message to many people who are
not interested in it, and often imposes some costs on the unwilling
recipients or others. [For instance, since spam burdens network
capacity, its costs are not limited to recipients.] Demonstrations are
like spam in that they broadcast an unsolicited message (and, if we
assume that the target audience for demonstrations is policymakers
alone, indeed the message is irrelevant to most recipients). Also like
spam, but to varying degrees, demonstrations impose actual costs,
including the costs of deploying police officers to provide security and
the costs to people who are physically delayed because of the
demonstrations. And so on.
At the limit, they may believe, demonstrations can be 'worse than spam'
in that spam can be thought of as a horrifically inefficient effort to
communicate (where the costs of inefficiency are imposed on others than
the sender), while to a considerable degree, demonstrators seem to be
motivated by a desire to "express themselves" _rather than_ a desire to
communicate any meaning to anyone whatsoever.
I'm less sure how Ronda might "respond" to this model of the analogy
between demonstrations and spam. She would need to articulate a clearer
definition of her understanding of "spam," and her understanding of
demonstrations in the context of communications. I agree with Howard(?)
that it won't suffice to say, "Spam is something that is nonsense." And
I don't think it will suffice to say that demonstrations are a way "for
people to challenge what those in authority are promoting" -- because
clearly there are other ways that don't impose the same externalities.
(But of course she didn't stop there.)
Ronda may believe, inter alia, that spam is intrinsically a
unidirectional, one-to-many communication. (Is that any different,
really, from saying "push communications"? I'm not sure.) But
demonstrations are _not_ like spam, because they are many-to-many
communications; demonstrators are talking with and otherwise influencing
each other as well as others where they demonstrate. The notion that a
demonstration is primarily a poorly focused effort to communicate with a
_policymaker_ audience -- and, therefore, that we'd really be much
better off honing mechanisms to make better arguments to congressional
staff -- is fundamentally wrong. "Demos," and the demos (the people who
make democracy), are about talking with each other, not primarily about
petitioning other people who make the real decisions.
Moreover, she might add, the right of the people peaceably to assemble
is so fundamental that even if we discount the complex network effects
of demonstrations, they would be better conceptualized as many-to-few
communications (an attempt to challenge the authorities), perhaps with
some unintended externalities, than as one-to-many.
One interesting divergence in these models I've tried to sketch is that
one apparently conceives of a demonstration as, ideally, a single actor
[e.g., the anti-war movement] sending a single message ["stop the war!"]
to a narrow audience [policymakers] (or perhaps to a broader public
audience). Indeed, a common complaint about the Seattle WTO protests,
most heard from people who weren't there and are glad of it, is that --
eegads! -- the protestors didn't have a single message. The second
model conceives of a demonstration as multiple actors sending multiple
messages to multiple audiences. A march is like the Internet. No, a
march is like spam.
Epiphany? nonsense? some of each?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:05:27 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
>The thread seems to exemplify both the pitfalls and certain
>potentials of freewheeling analogies. I want to see whether I have
>any understanding of what people intend to be arguing. What follows
>may verge on caricature, but I'm more groping for models than for
>precise characterizations.
>
>Howard and Larry may believe, inter alia, that "spam" is "push
>communications" that sends an unsolicited message to many people who
>are not interested in it, and often imposes some costs on the
>unwilling recipients or others. [For instance, since spam burdens
>network capacity, its costs are not limited to recipients.]
Clarification: did you mean senders? Distinct costs are imposed both
on intermediate networks and the recipients. In comparison, spammers
using technically efficient spam technology incur minimum costs.
>Demonstrations are like spam in that they broadcast an unsolicited
>message (and, if we assume that the target audience for
>demonstrations is policymakers alone, indeed the message is
>irrelevant to most recipients). Also like spam, but to varying
>degrees, demonstrations impose actual costs, including the costs of
>deploying police officers to provide security and the costs to
>people who are physically delayed because of the demonstrations.
>And so on.
>
>At the limit, they may believe, demonstrations can be 'worse than
>spam' in that spam can be thought of as a horrifically inefficient
>effort to communicate (where the costs of inefficiency are imposed
>on others than the sender), while to a considerable degree,
>demonstrators seem to be motivated by a desire to "express
>themselves" _rather than_ a desire to communicate any meaning to
>anyone whatsoever.
>
>I'm less sure how Ronda might "respond" to this model of the analogy
>between demonstrations and spam. She would need to articulate a
>clearer definition of her understanding of "spam," and her
>understanding of demonstrations in the context of communications. I
>agree with Howard(?) that it won't suffice to say, "Spam is
>something that is nonsense." And I don't think it will suffice to
>say that demonstrations are a way "for people to challenge what
>those in authority are promoting" -- because clearly there are other
>ways that don't impose the same externalities. (But of course she
>didn't stop there.)
>
>Ronda may believe, inter alia, that spam is intrinsically a
>unidirectional, one-to-many communication. (Is that any different,
>really, from saying "push communications"? I'm not sure.)
Perhaps we may want to subdivide into "opt-in push" and "unsolicited
push". The former is illustrated by subscribing to a topical mailing
list, and then receiving whatever messages are posted to it. The
latter involves content being pushed to recipients that have taken no
affirmative steps to indicate any interest in receiving the content.
>But demonstrations are _not_ like spam, because they are
>many-to-many communications; demonstrators are talking with and
>otherwise influencing each other as well as others where they
>demonstrate. The notion that a demonstration is primarily a poorly
>focused effort to communicate with a _policymaker_ audience -- and,
>therefore, that we'd really be much better off honing mechanisms to
>make better arguments to congressional staff -- is fundamentally
>wrong. "Demos," and the demos (the people who make democracy), are
>about talking with each other, not primarily about petitioning other
>people who make the real decisions.
I think we are in agreement. I see the major role of demonstrations
as a motivational tool for people already sufficiently like-minded to
participate in the demonstration.
I don't suggest demonstrations are poorly focused efforts to
communicate with policymakers, unless you accept "poorly" to include
"ineffectual or nearly so".
>
>Moreover, she might add, the right of the people peaceably to
>assemble is so fundamental that even if we discount the complex
>network effects of demonstrations, they would be better
>conceptualized as many-to-few communications (an attempt to
>challenge the authorities), perhaps with some unintended
>externalities, than as one-to-many.
>
>One interesting divergence in these models I've tried to sketch is
>that one apparently conceives of a demonstration as, ideally, a
>single actor [e.g., the anti-war movement] sending a single message
>["stop the war!"] to a narrow audience [policymakers] (or perhaps to
>a broader public audience). Indeed, a common complaint about the
>Seattle WTO protests, most heard from people who weren't there and
>are glad of it, is that -- eegads! -- the protestors didn't have a
>single message. The second model conceives of a demonstration as
>multiple actors sending multiple messages to multiple audiences. A
>march is like the Internet. No, a march is like spam.
>
>Epiphany? nonsense? some of each?
Yes.
>
>Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:22:48 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
>
>
>> Howard and Larry may believe, inter alia, that "spam" is "push
>> communications" that sends an unsolicited message to many people who
>> are not interested in it, and often imposes some costs on the
>> unwilling recipients or others. [For instance, since spam burdens
>> network capacity, its costs are not limited to recipients.]
>
> Clarification: did you mean senders? Distinct costs are imposed both
> on intermediate networks and the recipients. In comparison, spammers
> using technically efficient spam technology incur minimum costs.
I meant, "imposes some costs on the unwilling recipients -- but not only
on them, but also on intermediaries." The point that the costs aren't
limited to _senders_ would almost be bouncing the rubble, but yes.
[opt-in vs. unsolicited push: OK.]
> I think we are in agreement. I see the major role of demonstrations as
> a motivational tool for people already sufficiently like-minded to
> participate in the demonstration.
>
> I don't suggest demonstrations are poorly focused efforts to
> communicate with policymakers, unless you accept "poorly" to include
> "ineffectual or nearly so".
Well, many demonstrators of my acquaintance do say that they are trying
to "send a message" to policymakers; we can judge (or debate) that this
message is both "ineffectual" and "poorly focused" in that it imposes
costs on folks who didn't want to hear it (and may not even hear it, but
are bearing costs regardless). I also think there is truth to the
"motivational tool" argument. But it doesn't fit neatly into the "like
the Internet/like spam" 'debate,' so I gave it less emphasis.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:45:26 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off
RH> The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by
RH> the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't see march as discourse. What kind of discourse? I doubt there
is any discourse between people participating in the march and there is
no discourse on the side of spokespersons of the march. They don't
want to accept facts about situation in Iraq, they are just too blind
to see anything. I think that's because people in America don't have
any historical experience under totalitarian regime. If they had there
wouldn't be so many demonstrations and 'wanna-peace' marches.
It's not about war or peace, that's about Kurdish people, people of
Kuwait and Israel that have been unable to rest for past 10 years
without the question what if (Saddam does anything)?
This is about SCUDs being launched on Israel during Gulf war when
Israel didn't take part in that war.
And this is about North Korea, Cuba and other dictatorships around the
world where people have been dying from hunger (North Korea) or
continually made poor by the totalitarian governments (Cuba).
And this is about the Internet (internet), too. I want people in Iraq
to be able communicate with the rest of the world freely without any
constraints and/or censorship. I want them to be educated, to acquire
full literacy rate. I haven't seen good universities in
totalitarian countries, have you? What's the reason? Money or what?
Iraq has plenty of money, but where are all the money? What does
approach 'oil for food' really mean? That means only one thing:
Saddam has tens of his underground palaces ready built from marble and
gold. And common people are selling their property on the streets to
get some money to buy food.
Peace with Saddam means the same thing as peace with Hitler.
Chamberlain arranged it and 6-million Jews died because of it and god
knows how many Romas, homosexuals, communists and other innocent
people. And because allies didn't bomb concentration camps as
Auschwitz/Osviencim/Birkenau. And the fact was bombers of allies were
bombing targets only 6 kilometers from the gas chambers in Auschwitz.
And that's the fact. Peace means killing the innocent people (by Saddam).
War means killing the guilty people and alas sometimes hitting the
innocent, too.
'When you saved only one life, it's as you would save the whole Earth.'
Who said that? And that's what this war about.
Could be of interest:
Boas, Taylor C.: www.cubalibre.cu? The Internet and its Prospects for
a Democratic Society in Cuba,
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/issues/1.1/www.cubalibre.cu/body.html
Kedzie, Christopher: International Implications For Global
Democratization,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR650/mr650.ch6/ch6.html
Boas, Taylor C. a Kalathil, Shanthi: The Internet and State Control in
Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution
(Information Revolution and World Politics Project - Global Policy
Program, Number 21, July 2001),
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/wp21.asp
Cullen, Richard and Choy, Pinky D. W.: The Internet in China,
Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Vol 13 No 1, 1999,
http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/hkitlaw/Choy_and_Cullen.html
Hacktivismo: Camera/Shy (Program), version 0.2.23.1 Beta (Inaugural Edition)
www.hacktivismo.org (?) OR .com (?)
World Bank, Developement Data Group: ICT at a glance: for every
country (internet users, hosts, telephone lines, infrastructure etc.)
http://www.worldbank.org/data/index740.htm
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- netizen uses his email, ICQ, IRC on his business cards -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:16:50 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Hello: Since Cuba (my native land & Havana my birthplace) has been mentioned by
Dan, as an exiled cuban dissident I want to thank Dan for his words of concern
on behalf of the cuban people, especially those of us who have suffered under
the Castro regime. I commend you for your words of encouragement, its nice to
see that someone cares about us and our cause to restore democracy in Cuba, we
did have it you know, under the democratic governments of my party, the Partido
Revolucionario Cubano-Autentico, aka the "Autentico Party" under presidents
Ramon Grau San Martin (1944-1948) and Carlos Prio Socarras, (1948-1952) the
latter unfortunatly deposed by Batista on 3/10/52, the day democracy ended in
Cuba. I hope it returns to us someday.
I am glad to see that a growing number of fellow cubans have access to the
internet and I also hope many of them become netizens as time goes by.
Luis de Quesada
Dan Duris wrote:
> RH> The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by
> RH> the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I don't see march as discourse. What kind of discourse? I doubt there
> is any discourse between people participating in the march and there is
> no discourse on the side of spokespersons of the march. They don't
> want to accept facts about situation in Iraq, they are just too blind
> to see anything. I think that's because people in America don't have
> any historical experience under totalitarian regime. If they had there
> wouldn't be so many demonstrations and 'wanna-peace' marches.
>
> It's not about war or peace, that's about Kurdish people, people of
> Kuwait and Israel that have been unable to rest for past 10 years
> without the question what if (Saddam does anything)?
>
> This is about SCUDs being launched on Israel during Gulf war when
> Israel didn't take part in that war.
>
> And this is about North Korea, Cuba and other dictatorships around the
> world where people have been dying from hunger (North Korea) or
> continually made poor by the totalitarian governments (Cuba).
>
> And this is about the Internet (internet), too. I want people in Iraq
> to be able communicate with the rest of the world freely without any
> constraints and/or censorship. I want them to be educated, to acquire
> full literacy rate. I haven't seen good universities in
> totalitarian countries, have you? What's the reason? Money or what?
>
> Iraq has plenty of money, but where are all the money? What does
> approach 'oil for food' really mean? That means only one thing:
> Saddam has tens of his underground palaces ready built from marble and
> gold. And common people are selling their property on the streets to
> get some money to buy food.
>
> Peace with Saddam means the same thing as peace with Hitler.
> Chamberlain arranged it and 6-million Jews died because of it and god
> knows how many Romas, homosexuals, communists and other innocent
> people. And because allies didn't bomb concentration camps as
> Auschwitz/Osviencim/Birkenau. And the fact was bombers of allies were
> bombing targets only 6 kilometers from the gas chambers in Auschwitz.
>
> And that's the fact. Peace means killing the innocent people (by Saddam).
> War means killing the guilty people and alas sometimes hitting the
> innocent, too.
>
> 'When you saved only one life, it's as you would save the whole Earth.'
> Who said that? And that's what this war about.
>
> Could be of interest:
> Boas, Taylor C.: www.cubalibre.cu? The Internet and its Prospects for
> a Democratic Society in Cuba,
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/issues/1.1/www.cubalibre.cu/body.html
>
> Kedzie, Christopher: International Implications For Global
> Democratization,
> http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR650/mr650.ch6/ch6.html
>
> Boas, Taylor C. a Kalathil, Shanthi: The Internet and State Control in
> Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution
> (Information Revolution and World Politics Project - Global Policy
> Program, Number 21, July 2001),
> http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/wp21.asp
>
> Cullen, Richard and Choy, Pinky D. W.: The Internet in China,
> Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Vol 13 No 1, 1999,
> http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/hkitlaw/Choy_and_Cullen.html
>
> Hacktivismo: Camera/Shy (Program), version 0.2.23.1 Beta (Inaugural Edition)
> www.hacktivismo.org (?) OR .com (?)
>
> World Bank, Developement Data Group: ICT at a glance: for every
> country (internet users, hosts, telephone lines, infrastructure etc.)
> http://www.worldbank.org/data/index740.htm
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- netizen uses his email, ICQ, IRC on his business cards -*
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #446
******************************
