Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 418
Netizens-Digest Saturday, February 22 2003 Volume 01 : Number 418
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Resend == Re: [netz] Netizens and the Feb 15, 2003 demonstration in NYC (fwd)
[netz] final email on internet etc...
[netz] Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology
[netz] Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology
[netz] Local Netizenship
Re: [netz] Local Netizenship
Re: [netz] Local Netizenship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Resend == Re: [netz] Netizens and the Feb 15, 2003 demonstration in NYC (fwd)
I thought the Netizens list would find this of interest. It is part
of an exchange I had with Howard about the Internet and Saturday's
demonstration. I don't know how much of originally got on the netizens
list, but I wanted to be sure that this response did get on the list.
The nature of control system theory is very interesting in general
and was important as some of the roots of the Internet. And I think
it is relevant now as well. Ronda
>---------------
>
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz responding to Ronda
>Hauben's email wrote:
>
>RH> >But the treatment of people in NYC shows that democracy is not
>RH> >something the US federal government or NYC government have any
>RH> >respect for.
>>
>HB> Well, since neither the US federal or NYC governments are
>HB> democracies, I can understand that. They are republics.
>>
>HB> One of the principles of control system theory, certainly a principle
>HB> that underlies the Internet, is that systems remain stable when you
>HB> insert degenerative (negative) feedback, rather than regenerative
>HB> (positive) feedback. There's quite a bit in the US constitution that
>HB> makes the process one designed not to the popular thinking of the
>HB> moment, but a reflective one.
>>
>
RH>This is helpful as I have been studying control system theory and
RH>someone I told this too recently asked if there were any signs that
RH>there was control system theory involved in the development of the
RH>Internet.
>
RH>I would agree that this is also a principle that underlines the
RH>US constitution so I am happy to hear your reference to this.
>
RH>But isn't this some of what protest is for a government, isn't
RH>it some of the negative feedback it needs from citizens with
RH>regard to what the government policy is and how the citizens
RH>are responding to it?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:10:34 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] final email on internet etc...
I am little bit dissapointed by number of responses to my email. I
have only received your ones.
But anyway, thanks for the points. BTW: Next time, could you try to
delete redundant parts of email, please. That's really good practice.
PS GPS is really good in my opinion, too. I just don't know why mobile
operators here don't use it for localization rather than 900 MHz
GSM... It's probably just that they already have plenty of bases and
don't want to switch for this time to different technology.
;-)
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "sometimes world is like an ink, bitter & black" petra n. -*
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:02:57 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: [netz] Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology
- --part1_1c7.56d2ccb.2b87a7b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Howard and Ronda;
Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology. Many questions.
How do you design a workable abstract model for a real social system that is=
=20
simple enough to analyze the input-output associative mappings and yet=20
complex enough to be able to plausibly apply the results from this model to=20
the real world? Does this social system use only the Internet as a means of=
=20
communication? Is that a reasonable constraint? Are the 'tropisms' of=20
humans in social groups as predictable as the application of control theory=20
would have us to believe? A dynamical systems approach to sociology... Hmm.=
=20
I know negative feedback improves the stability of op amps though at the=20
expense of gain, but then again 'everything' comes at a cost.
By application of control systems theory to the Internet, are you are=20
referring to a particular group of users or the interaction between=20
particular groups of users, or you are not talking about sociology at all?
Howard and Ronda, please explain how control systems theory can help us gain=
=20
more than a whimsical insight into the behavior of the Netizen or citizen.
Larry
Referencing the following...>>>
>HB> One of the principles of control system theory, certainly a principle
>HB> that underlies the Internet, is that systems remain stable when you
>HB> insert degenerative (negative) feedback, rather than regenerative
>HB> (positive) feedback.=A0 There's quite a bit in the US constitution that
>HB> makes the process one designed not to the popular thinking of the
>HB> moment, but a reflective one.
>>
>
RH>This is helpful as I have been studying control system theory and
RH>someone I told this too recently asked if there were any signs that
RH>there was control system theory involved in the development of the
RH>Internet.
>
RH>I would agree that this is also a principle that underlines the
RH>US constitution so I am happy to hear your reference to this.
>
RH>But isn't this some of what protest is for a government, isn't
RH>it some of the negative feedback it needs from citizens with
RH>regard to what the government policy is and how the citizens
RH>are responding to it?
- --part1_1c7.56d2ccb.2b87a7b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Dear Howard and Ronda;<BR>
<BR>
Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology. Many questions.<BR>
<BR>
How do you design a workable abstract model for a real social system that is=
simple enough to analyze the input-output associative mappings and yet comp=
lex enough to be able to plausibly apply the results from this model to the=20=
real world? Does this social system use only the Internet as a means o=
f communication? Is that a reasonable constraint? Are the 'tropi=
sms' of humans in social groups as predictable as the application of control=
theory would have us to believe? A dynamical systems approach to soci=
ology... Hmm. I know negative feedback improves the stability of op am=
ps though at the expense of gain, but then again 'everything' comes at a cos=
t.<BR>
<BR>
By application of control systems theory to the Internet, are you are referr=
ing to a particular group of users or the interaction between particular gro=
ups of users, or you are not talking about sociology at all?<BR>
<BR>
Howard and Ronda, please explain how control systems theory can help us gain=
more than a whimsical insight into the behavior of the Netizen or citizen.<=
BR>
<BR>
Larry<BR>
<BR>
Referencing the following...>>><BR>
<BR>
>HB> One of the principles of control system theory, certainly a princ=
iple<BR>
>HB> that underlies the Internet, is that systems remain stable when y=
ou<BR>
>HB> insert degenerative (negative) feedback, rather than regenerative=
<BR>
>HB> (positive) feedback.=A0 There's quite a bit in the US constitutio=
n that<BR>
>HB> makes the process one designed not to the popular thinking of the=
<BR>
>HB> moment, but a reflective one.<BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
RH>This is helpful as I have been studying control system theory and<BR>
RH>someone I told this too recently asked if there were any signs that<BR=
>
RH>there was control system theory involved in the development of the<BR>
RH>Internet.<BR>
><BR>
RH>I would agree that this is also a principle that underlines the<BR>
RH>US constitution so I am happy to hear your reference to this.<BR>
><BR>
RH>But isn't this some of what protest is for a government, isn't<BR>
RH>it some of the negative feedback it needs from citizens with<BR>
RH>regard to what the government policy is and how the citizens<BR>
RH>are responding to it?<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1c7.56d2ccb.2b87a7b1_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:38:56 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology
>Dear Howard and Ronda;
>
>Re: Control Systems Theory and Netizen Sociology. Many questions.
>
>How do you design a workable abstract model for a real social system
>that is simple enough to analyze the input-output associative
>mappings and yet complex enough to be able to plausibly apply the
>results from this model to the real world?
I wasn't proposing a complete abstract model, although I can't speak
for what Ronda may have in mind. I was, however, making some
observations of things learned about control system theory.
One of the _dangers_ of participation in the Net, in other electronic
media, and even mass protests is a desire for instant gratification.
Now, we certainly can speak of a medium-independent protest as
degenerative feedback to politicians and the like.
A concern of mine, however, is that rumor-spreading, petitions and
protests by unidentifiable organizations [1], etc., introduce
regenerative feedback into the general population, and cause
oscillation -- or the behavior that can be characterized by "100,000
lemmings can't be wrong."
[1] Incidentally, I find the worst cases of this generally involving "gray
propaganda [2] first from corporate bodies, then from political ones
(especially political action committees and single-issue lobbies).
[2] In psychological warfare, white, gray, and black propaganda are terms
of art for categorizing messages. White propaganda is clearly labeled
with its true source. Gray propaganda comes in a variety of shades,
from no source identified, to an ad-hoc untraceable source, to a source
that can be mistaken for the opposition. Black propaganda is false
information identified as coming from your opponent.
Consider television advertising in the telephone regulation area. I
forget all the group names, such as "Citizens for Free Competition" or
"Consumers for Choice." If you dig into the industry press, you'll
often find these are shell organizations completely funded by opposing
corporations, and have little to do with any grass-roots opinion.
One might be sponsored by the regulated phone companies wanting to move
into unregulated services, and others might be sponsored by the
currently unregulated competitive carriers trying to block market entry.
The "Harry and Louise" ads against certain health policy initiatives
were an especially effective case of television commercial portrayal
of apparently attractive consumers, who were actors speaking an
emotionally-laden script. Interesting discusssion at
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/rwj/coverage.htm
>Does this social system use only the Internet as a means of
>communication? Is that a reasonable constraint? Are the 'tropisms'
>of humans in social groups as predictable as the application of
>control theory would have us to believe? A dynamical systems
>approach to sociology... Hmm. I know negative feedback improves the
>stability of op amps though at the expense of gain, but then again
>'everything' comes at a cost.
Think of the original intent of the US Constitution and its checks
and balances. We might consider some of them inappropriate today,
but they are instructional: the Senate in the role of the more
reflective body, originally reflecting the wealthy and the sovereign
states, the House the more popular body, with shorter terms
encouraging rapid response. Associated with these goals were the
reservation of treaty and appointee approval by the Senate, and
reservation of initiation of tax imposition by the House.
Checks and balances among the three branches of the US government
developed, in practice, somewhat after the early Congressional ones,
Marbury vs. Madison being a good example.
>
>By application of control systems theory to the Internet, are you
>are referring to a particular group of users or the interaction
>between particular groups of users, or you are not talking about
>sociology at all?
Well, the first thing I think of with respect to the Internet and
control systems theory is the internal design of Internet protocols.
I'm not sure I was necessarily introducing the concept in rigorous
sociological form, but mentioning mechanisms that could affect the
interactions of arbitrary groups. It would be a legitimate social
science research project to examine group behavior with respect to
the rapidity of positive or negative feedback.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:42:05 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Local Netizenship
While the list most frequently deals with grave global issues, I
thought it might be interesting for people to hear about a very
micro-level Netizen problem I'm dealing with at the moment.
I live in the Claremont neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia, a
close-in suburb to Washington DC. We have a neighborhood association
mailing list that waxes and wanes in activity, dealing with things
ranging from finding a roofer, to issues regarding the local school
and managing vehicular traffic on back streets in which children play.
Over the last few years, there have been various incentives to bring
professional baseball to the DC area. One of the sites is in
Arlington, and, frankly, I oppose it as do many others. It would
replace some very convenient shopping, create no more and probably
less jobs than what it replaced, and cause immense traffic flows on
streets not designed to handle it.
A few weeks ago, the chairman of our county board (the only level of
local government) died suddenly during a board meeting. There will be
a special election to fill the seat. One candidate has expressed
strong opposition to the stadium, while the other wants to see more
studies.
There is, at present, no Arlington-wide list. One not terribly
respected local political gadfly has been sending email to every
individual community mailing list, essentially supporting the stadium
opponent.
This is especially annoying at the moment, because it's not germane
to an extremely local list -- the stadium would be a considerable
distance away. Especially for the people outside the US, the
Washington area is digging out from the 6th worst snowstorm in its
history. I literally haven't forced my front door open yet, although
I hope to get out tomorrow. The list has been pretty active with
very local mutual help, and local government liaison, in dealing with
the snow.
The response of several local "netizens" was to describe feeling
"invaded" by the stadium issue, and their response was to resign from
the list. My immediate response to the gadfly was to suggest he
might want to work on a county-wide list, but in the meantime, let us
deal with the snow.
He agreed at first, although he's been posting again in response to
criticisms of his activities. In the background, I am working with a
couple of other neighborhood technical people to modify our list so
that anybody can read it, but only neighborhood residents can post to
it. I'm also investigating if a county-wide list can be set up.
Now -- look at this as Netizens. Should network freedoms allow him
to take up significant bandwidth on a mailing list? We've talked a
lot about demonstrations -- if you will, we are dealing with a cyber
demonstration that is interfering with daily life.
A wise justice of the US Supreme Court, long before computers, said
"your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins". How does
this apply to the net? There are many related examples. Do spammers
have free speech rights, especially in areas where their advertising
costs transfer to the recipient?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:30:29 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Local Netizenship
Howard wrote in part,
> Now -- look at this as Netizens. Should network freedoms allow him
> to take up significant bandwidth on a mailing list? We've talked a
> lot about demonstrations -- if you will, we are dealing with a cyber
> demonstration that is interfering with daily life.
>
> A wise justice of the US Supreme Court, long before computers, said
> "your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins". How does
> this apply to the net?
Well, that probably isn't the way I would've chosen to frame the issue,
although it "works" too. I'd say that the mailing list is a community
resource, and there is no principled reason why the community can't regulate
its use. The list is somewhat akin to a town meeting or public hearing; the
typical norms are that everyone with standing (all community members; others
depending on context) should be able to speak, but not endlessly, not about non-
germane topics, and not in ad hominem thrusts. There may be others, and of
course these principles aren't engraved in stone, much less their
interpretations; we work out their meanings politically in various contexts.
I think in part because e-mail messages don't have the effect of "holding the
floor" -- if one person (say, me) rambles on endlessly, others don't have to
listen or to wait -- most lists get by with very few limitations on
participation. Some impose limits on how often someone can post within a given
time period, to make it harder for one or a few people to dominate discussion.
Many lists ban attachments. Often, when no limits are imposed despite what
seem to be indefensible abuses, the rationale is not that the abusers have
a "right" to do what they do, but that no one has the authority to limit it
(anarchy obtains) and/or that the costs of regulation exceed the costs of non-
regulation.
I realize that I'm begging many questions! It's an interesting topic. (On the
issue of demonstrations, I'll just say that one reason it's legal to require
permits for marches is the perceived need to reconcile free speech rights with
other needs and values.)
> There are many related examples. Do spammers
> have free speech rights, especially in areas where their advertising
> costs transfer to the recipient?
Certainly nothing in the U.S. constitution, or in any political philosophy that
I'm aware of, assures anyone a "right" to advertise at the recipient's expense.
There are interesting questions about whether "commercial speech" enjoys fewer
rights than "political speech," but at this level of generality, I'm not sure
they are relevant.
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:44:49 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Local Netizenship
>Howard wrote in part,
>
>I think in part because e-mail messages don't have the effect of "holding the
>floor" -- if one person (say, me) rambles on endlessly, others don't have to
>listen or to wait -- most lists get by with very few limitations on
>participation.
You raise a very interesting point, and one relevant to widespread
net use. Personally, I receive 300-1000 emails a day, and while I
use spam filters and the like, half a dozen rambling posts from this
individual don't even prompt me to set up filters.
But the response of 4-6 households was to remove themselves from the
list, one couple saying they "felt invaded." To me, that's massive
oversensitivity, but it may be consistent with the feelings of
nontechnical users of a presumably focused resource.
>Some impose limits on how often someone can post within a given
>time period, to make it harder for one or a few people to dominate discussion.
>Many lists ban attachments.
Of course. There are many technical fixes. What, frankly, surprised
me is the intensity of negative reaction. I will note,
incidentally, that my community has an extremely high amount of
Internet connectivity and a generally high education level.
>Often, when no limits are imposed despite what
>seem to be indefensible abuses, the rationale is not that the abusers have
>a "right" to do what they do, but that no one has the authority to limit it
>(anarchy obtains) and/or that the costs of regulation exceed the costs of non-
>regulation.
Add to that the knowledge of how to respond to the nuisance. I don't
think I'm boasting to say I could set up a workaround in under an
hour.
>
>I realize that I'm begging many questions! It's an interesting
>topic. (On the
>issue of demonstrations, I'll just say that one reason it's legal to require
>permits for marches is the perceived need to reconcile free speech rights with
>other needs and values.)
I'm inclined to start another thread about the complex tradeoffs
between anonymity and accountability in the net.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #418
******************************
