Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 445
Netizens-Digest Thursday, March 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 445
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: [netz] Many voices online and off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:06:43 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
>In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:
>
>>The march resembled
>>the Internet.
>>
>
>
>Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it
>is unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of
>others in its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is
>civil and it is tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency
>of message is low -- just like spam.
Commercial spam at least has a clear agenda: profits for its
initiator, using an economic model that simply evaluates the direct
cost to the sender against the receiver. Cost to the recipient
simply does not enter into the spammer's equation.
The impact on the recipient will vary. I normally receive several
hundred emails per day, of which perhaps 20% is spam. I have quite
extensive server-side and client-side filtering that took substantial
effort to set up, but now lets me see my mail without having to sort
through many irrelevancies.
On occasion, while traveling, I have to retrieve mail through a web
interface that does not have the extensive filtering of my home
machine. My mail productivity drops immensely, both because I have
to sort through the spam, and I also lack the other message handling
that organizes mail into topic-specific folders. Where the latter
operates, it converts a push technology to a pull one--I can read my
medical lists, or my cooking lists, or any of assorted networking
technology lists, when I am prepared to focus my mind on that topic.
Now, when I speak of demonstrations, I'm not including quiet vigils
and the like that do not block traffic, drown out speakers, prevent
people from getting to offices and shops, etc. I have a good deal of
respect for those who respect me, and the dignified action of that
sort of protester earns my respect. I can even engender more respect
for a protester who makes a direct and specific action and takes
personal responsibility, such as someone that pours blood or defaces
a weapon. As opposed to spammers, someone who is willing to be
arrested to make a point is not taking extensive precautions from any
negative feedback. They are accountable.
IN THE PRESENCE OF NEW MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS, however, I find the
large street demonstration, while generally within the scope of the
law, to be remarkably inconsiderate of neutral parties -- including
people who may even support the cause, but for perfectly mundane
reasons of health or need to care for children, do not have the
leisure to participate in the demonstration.
So what is the benefit of the mass demonstration, given there are
more focused alternatives (i.e., exactly what we can do with
technology empowerment)? I suggest it is driven just as much by
"personal" interest as the spammer, except the payoff is not
economic, but typically to motivate people already committed to the
protest theme.
Without endorsing or disapproving, I post another person's comment
from another newsgroup, on which there is considerable reasoned
discussion but a very different ideology than many of the protest
groups. I suggest people examine this from a public communication
and information theoretic standpoint, and consider whether
net-enabled communications may be more focused and effective, if not
as emotionally satisfying for the participants:
>
>:I'm in favor of continuing this war to its logical conclusion. I'm also in
>:favor of letting these idiots protest their little brains out, for at least
>:three reasons:
>: 1. Most of them sound like idiots, no matter how forcefully they make
>:their stand
>: 2. What, we can't take a little criticism?
>: 3. Given the person who is now NCA, does anyone believe that a protest
>:will change his course of action?
>
>I've got one more. Given that their actions are often designed to be
>as disruptive and inconvenient as possible to the typical man in the
>street, what they're going to do is piss people off AT THEM rather
>than at the government or the war.
>
>If they really want to self-inflict and drive people into opposition
>to them, I say more power to them!
In summary, if we explore the similarities (or lack thereof) between
marches and Net-enabled communications, I urge serious reflection on
the balance of personal satisfaction in marching, to the actual
achievement of goals and the alienation of neutrals or potential
supporters.
Netizenship, and net-hased communications, is attractive to me
because it introduces new and potentially more effective
communications paradigms. Focusing on the net as a means of enabling
marches might be analogous to developing industrial robots to mass
produce really good manual typewriters.
>
>I don't know.
>
>The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to
>compare the marches with the Internet?
>
>The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of
>these communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite
>analogous and would naturally tend to influence the behavior of
>those who wish exploit these tools differently, in ways that are
>unique to each medium.
>
>Moreover, I argue that the product of these behaviors might not be
>meaningfully comparable.
[snip good analogies of different approaches to creating music]
>
>I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by
>examining the march.
>
>Larry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:12:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:
>
> > The march resembled
> > the Internet.
>
> Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is
> unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in
> its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is
> tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low --
> just like spam.
No the march did not at all represent spam.
Larry did you look at the slogans of the march?
The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust
actions of their government.
And the ability to present their views to each other.
I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations
and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this
march was a very special experience.
There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and
thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are
portrayed by the American media.
What is spam?
Spam is something that is nonsense.
The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by
the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is
that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death
to protect your right to say it.
That does *not* apply to advertisements.
The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements.
But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse
views.
And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment
to welcoming a diversity of views.
Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3
"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are
encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical
positions without examples or other specifics, specific
suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or
background explication, and explicit questions without any
attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG
note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed).
(from Chapter 7, of Netizens)
>
> I don't know.
>
> The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the
> marches with the Internet?
Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the
ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views.
I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors.
They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with
regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and
that the US government has ignored world opinion.
They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US
citizens and so does the U.S. government.
>
> The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these
> communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite analogous and would
> naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these
> tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium.
Both make it possible for a multiplicity of views to be shared.
That is a significant contribution of both.
> I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by examining
> the march.
It is interesting that the early research on the ARPANET was during
the period of the anti Vietnam movement.
You might find it of interest to read Netizens, or at least some
of the chapters Michael wrote for it.
In chapter 7, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and
Computer Science" Michael describes why he feels the open process
of the RFC's was so important.
"The open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information.
Technical development is only successful when information is
allowed to flow fereely and easily between the parties involved.
Encouraging participation is the main principle that made the development
of the Net possible.
"Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their
support of a process of openness. They were written during the late
1960s, a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were
demanding more of a say in how their countries were run. The open
environment needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the
cry for more democracy that students and others raised throughout
the world during the 1960s...."
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
Cheers
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:40:56 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:
>>
>> > The march resembled
>> > the Internet.
>>
>> Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is
>> unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in
>> its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is
>> tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low --
>> just like spam.
>
>
>No the march did not at all represent spam.
>
>Larry did you look at the slogans of the march?
>
>The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust
>actions of their government.
Except that ability ends at the same figurative place that ends your
freedom to wave your fist -- the end of my nose. Peaceful
demonstrations, or even focused civil disobedience, is not
equivalent, to me, to shutting down parts of major cities or imposing
inconveniences on neutrals.
>
>And the ability to present their views to each other.
>
>I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations
>and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this
>march was a very special experience.
>
>There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and
>thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are
>portrayed by the American media.
>
>What is spam?
>
>Spam is something that is nonsense.
No. Spam is many things, but nonsense is not one of them. It is a
very conscious, if discourteous and exploitative way, of achieving a
(usually) commercial but sometimes political goal.
>
>The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by
>the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
>
>The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is
>that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death
>to protect your right to say it.
I take it, then, that you are absolutely opposed to Internet
censorship and hacktivism? That is a question, not a challenge.
>
>That does *not* apply to advertisements.
>
>The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements.
>
>But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse
>views.
>
>And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment
>to welcoming a diversity of views.
And I can accept a demonstration more easily than some of the same
participants shouting down a speaker with different views.
>
>Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3
>
>"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
>related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are
>encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical
>positions without examples or other specifics, specific
>suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or
>background explication, and explicit questions without any
>attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG
>note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed).
>(from Chapter 7, of Netizens)
NWG may have had that role twenty-odd years ago, but the IETF
(successor to the NWG) has far different rules today. I'm currently
considering an appeal to the Internet Engineering Steering Group to
permit a relatively minor variation from the rules, to allow us to
have six authors on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt
and still let it go to RFC (the successor to notes).
To put it in perspective, you cite NWG 3. Today's, the document
numbers of the successor documents are in the mid-3000's.
Ronda, I respectfully suggest that you occasionally post social and
organizational practices from the very dawn of the Internet and
assume they are still valid and found to be useful by the
participants. Experience has sometimes found they are not. In
particular, things that could work when you could put all of the
major participants in a large classroom don't scale to meetings with
thousands of physical participants and at least tens of thousands of
virtual participants. That we've changed methods doesn't mean we
still don't do good work.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the
>> marches with the Internet?
>
>Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the
>ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views.
>
>I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors.
>
>They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with
>regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and
>that the US government has ignored world opinion.
>
>They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US
>citizens and so does the U.S. government.
>
>
>>
>> The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these
>> communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite
>>analogous and would
>> naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these
>> tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium.
>
>Both make it possible for a multiplicity of views to be shared.
>
>That is a significant contribution of both.
>
>
>> I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by examining
>> the march.
>
>It is interesting that the early research on the ARPANET was during
>the period of the anti Vietnam movement.
>
>You might find it of interest to read Netizens, or at least some
>of the chapters Michael wrote for it.
>
>In chapter 7, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and
>Computer Science" Michael describes why he feels the open process
>of the RFC's was so important.
>
>"The open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information.
>Technical development is only successful when information is
>allowed to flow fereely and easily between the parties involved.
>Encouraging participation is the main principle that made the development
>of the Net possible.
>
>"Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their
>support of a process of openness. They were written during the late
>1960s, a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were
>demanding more of a say in how their countries were run. The open
>environment needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the
>cry for more democracy that students and others raised throughout
>the world during the 1960s...."
>
>http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
>
>Cheers
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:39:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >> jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:
> >>
> >> > The march resembled
> >> > the Internet.
> >>
> >> Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is
> >> unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in
> >> its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is
> >> tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low --
> >> just like spam.
> >
> >
> >No the march did not at all represent spam.
> >
> >Larry did you look at the slogans of the march?
> >
> >The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust
> >actions of their government.
>
> Except that ability ends at the same figurative place that ends your
> freedom to wave your fist -- the end of my nose. Peaceful
> demonstrations, or even focused civil disobedience, is not
> equivalent, to me, to shutting down parts of major cities or imposing
> inconveniences on neutrals.
Howard, I was responding to Larry's statement about the many many
thousands of homemade signs at the March on March 22, 2003 in New
York City.
The march had a permit.
Why are you changing the subject?
Do you agree that the ability to present ones views, whether in signs
on a march, or in posts on the Internet or on Usenet, particularlywhen
they are critical of or disagree with authority, are important?
>
> >
> >And the ability to present their views to each other.
> >
> >I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations
> >and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this
> >march was a very special experience.
> >
> >There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and
> >thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are
> >portrayed by the American media.
> >
> >What is spam?
> >
> >Spam is something that is nonsense.
>
>
> No. Spam is many things, but nonsense is not one of them. It is a
> very conscious, if discourteous and exploitative way, of achieving a
> (usually) commercial but sometimes political goal.
>
> >
> >The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by
> >the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> >
> >The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is
> >that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death
> >to protect your right to say it.
>
> I take it, then, that you are absolutely opposed to Internet
> censorship and hacktivism? That is a question, not a challenge.
I am not talking about hactivism and I am wondering what you
mean by Internet censorship.
But that is not the point of what I am referring to.
I am referring to the support at one time I found on Usenet
and still find in some places on Usenet and on the Internet
for people to challenge what those in authority are promoting.
The US government is the authority in the situation regarding
the Iraq war.
The effort to promote what IBM or Worldcom or CISCO might want
as standards plays that role at times for the technical community
with regard to the Internet.
This is the principle I am talking about.
This is what the signs at the march represented.
This is the kind of speech that is so precious both on the Internet
and in the USA at this time. This is the kind of speech that
needs protection.
>
> >
> >That does *not* apply to advertisements.
> >
> >The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements.
> >
> >But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse
> >views.
> >
> >And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment
> >to welcoming a diversity of views.
>
> And I can accept a demonstration more easily than some of the same
> participants shouting down a speaker with different views.
>
> >
> >Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3
> >
> >"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.
> >related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are
> >encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical
> >positions without examples or other specifics, specific
> >suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or
> >background explication, and explicit questions without any
> >attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG
> >note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed).
> >(from Chapter 7, of Netizens)
>
>
NWG may have had that role twenty-odd years ago, but the IETF
(successor to the NWG) has far different rules today. I'm currently
considering an appeal to the Internet Engineering Steering Group to
permit a relatively minor variation from the rules, to allow us to
have six authors on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt
and still let it go to RFC (the successor to notes).
I understand that the IETF is not the NWG.
This doesn't change that the principle of the RFC is still
a critical principle for the Internet and its development.
>
> To put it in perspective, you cite NWG 3. Today's, the document
> numbers of the successor documents are in the mid-3000's.
And a friend I have in Austria had the experience of having her
views ignored in the IETF and the RFC she presented ignored.
There are I am sure many such examples.
But the principle is still the principle that gave birth to the
Internet and this is the Netizens list.
This is a list to help to identify and understand those principles.
The U.S. declaration of independence is also an old document.
And surely those in power in the US government do not feel the
need to have the consent of the governed. Otherwise they wouldn't
call protest demonstrations around the world and in the US
the equivalent of a "focus group".
But the principles of the RFC still are the guiding principles
that netizens need to recognize and fight to have applied,
and the principle of governments being constituted from the consent
of the governed need to be recognized.
Perhaps you disagree?
> Ronda, I respectfully suggest that you occasionally post social and
> organizational practices from the very dawn of the Internet and
> assume they are still valid and found to be useful by the
> participants. Experience has sometimes found they are not. In
> particular, things that could work when you could put all of the
> major participants in a large classroom don't scale to meetings with
> thousands of physical participants and at least tens of thousands of
> virtual participants. That we've changed methods doesn't mean we
> still don't do good work.
>
Howard, I respectfully disagree.
Tom Paine pointed out that
"Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles
they grow from." The Rights of Man
If there are good founding principles then the form has a chance of
being good and it in turn nourishes the principles to continue.
The grassroots nature of the Internet and its development is
a very important foundation.
That grassroots nature is represented in the ways people find
online to discuss various aspects of technical development
and in the discussion of the vision that gave birth to the
Internet as well.
In the scaling it is critical not to lose sight of the fundamental
nature that may have become more diffuse and therefore harder
to recognize than the concentrated form that it appears in in
the earliest form.
That is why I find it helpful to look back at the concentrated
earliest form.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >> The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want
> >> to compare the
> >> marches with the Internet?
> >
> >Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the
> >ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views.
> >
> >I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors.
> >
> >They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with
> >regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and
> >that the US government has ignored world opinion.
> >
> >They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US
> >citizens and so does the U.S. government.
> >
> >>
> >> The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these
> >> communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite
> >> analogous and would
> >> naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these
> >> tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium.
The analogy to me is about the diversity of grassroots views and
observations and discussion that both make possible.
The march of March 22 in NYC made it possible for the participants
to share a great number of views and observations with others.
This is what is also very special about the Internet.
Is there disagreement with regard respecting the ability of
netizens to present their views and contributions as a very
essential aspect of the Internet?
The March 22 march in NYC was a situation where the ability of
people to present their views and contributions was also
present.
This is rare in the US except for the Internet. In general the
US media presents the views for people, not of people.
At the March 22 march in NYC people were able to present their
own views and participate and they did. They made signs and
shared them with each other and with others in NYC. This was
a rare event and an important event.
And the other place this is possible in on the Internet in
certain forms. For example there is an Indian newspaper that
welcomes the views of its readers and has a substantial
online discussion about the war against Iraq going on online.
The discussion was started by an editorial entitled "Netizens
Unite"
Via discussion and the sharing of views there is the basis
for netizens to unite. But there needs to be the desire
to communicate.
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #445
******************************
