Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 420
Netizens-Digest Friday, February 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 420
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:24:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
> From: Yvonne Liu <yl90@columbia.edu>
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627
- --
..........................................................................
yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo
..........................................................................
And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass
diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel,
South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China,
India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese)
can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of
course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the
growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people
of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military
dictatorship of the world.
- -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I
Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:46:11 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
> > From: Yvonne Liu <yl90@columbia.edu>
>
>http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627
>
>
>--
>
>..........................................................................
>yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo
>..........................................................................
>
>And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass
>diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel,
>South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China,
>India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese)
>can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of
>course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the
>growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people
>of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military
dictatorship of the world. -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign
Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I
>Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002)
As a practicing Wiccan, I suggest that unless one is referring to
things that might be observed by going skyclad, I know of no covens
in which Bush would feel comfortable.
More seriously, many maiing lists and USENET have long had a
netiquette convention that when the signature length exceeds the
content length, the posting is rejected.
Frankly, I find pointers to articles, as sole content, to have little
information content. If one wants to discuss the merits of the
article on this list and refer to the specifics, fine. While the
article does raise some interesting points, it leaps from point to
point in a manner that really needed an editor. I look at it and
fail to see its point.
It's perfectly feasible to have a network-based discussion with
proprietary software, with public domain software whose source is
available - NOT necessarily the same as "open source", or with open
source software.
I would suggest that the sort of broad-based radical organization
described in the article is obsolete in a network-centric information
society, which lets me focus my protest. Hypothetically, I might be
a totalitarian opposed to racism or a racist libertarian, and would
not be at home in the cited "ANSWER".
To quote a well-known activist, if you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the problem (although as a one-time chemist, I prefer
if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate).
Frankly, I find the paragraph taken from the cited article:
The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global
demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The
European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade
unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other
activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new,
network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but
which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political
discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical,
processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of
large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and
thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary
communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and
explosive growth.
to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of
what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party
platform. Any child can throw a tantrum.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:30:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> > > From: Yvonne Liu <yl90@columbia.edu>
> >
> >http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627
> >
>
> The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global
> demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The
> European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade
> unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other
> activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new,
> network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but
> which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political
> discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical,
> processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of
> large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and
> thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary
> communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and
> explosive growth.
>
> to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of
> what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party
> platform. Any child can throw a tantrum.
>
>
Interesting. What the demonstrations around the world on February 15
showed was that there is great discontent around the world with
the kind of policies that are being carried out in favor of making
war against Iraq and in other areas of life.
Maybe, the most glaring demand of the demonstrators is that
they don't there to be a war against the civilian population of
Iraq and they don't want all this discussion about war in their
countries.
Many of the signs at the rally that a lot of people couldn't get
to in NYC were signs about wanting health care for everyone,
and other social programs.
Also it seems many people want some way of being taken seriously
by those in their government/s. So that the governments don't
ignore the desires of the citizens, so that they don't see them
as the equivalent of a "focus group" would be used by businesses.
People are the citizens. Their government/s should be interested
in their needs and desires and trying to find ways to implement
what would be of benefit to the whole population.
Instead George Bush said that he doesn't make policy by what
focus groups say.
There are means of communication now that make it possible for
government officials to communicate with their citizens and
hear what they say.
More importantly there are ways for citizens to discuss the
affairs of the society and to therefore find ways to determine
what would be worthwhile as goals, and then to monitor
what happens with the efforts to implement these goals.
It seems that the current government leaders in most countries
around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how
these new means of communication like the Internet could be
helpful in having more effective government and more democratic
government.
It is ironic that George Bush should talk about how he will
bring democracy to the middle east region when he shows by
the way he treats people in the US that he has contempt for
democracy.
However, with the new means of communication people can talk
over their reactions and share them and try to find a way
to make them have some impact.
In a conference at MIT in 1961 about the future of computers,
C.P.Snow from Britain gave a talk about scientists and decision
making. He said that if people talk broadly about an issue
than that issue has a way to filter up to the people who make
the decisions in a country. He gave as an example the way
the desire of people in England after WWII for national health
care and the way it became the law.
It was an interesting theory he proposed. And even more interesting
is the fact that these means of communication like the Internet
make such discussion possible in broadranging ways.
The question is, can this change what is happening among those
who make the decisions in our world.
That is the challenge.
With best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:59:58 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
>On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> > > From: Yvonne Liu <yl90@columbia.edu>
>> >
>> >http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627
>> >
>>
>> The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global
>> demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The
>> European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade
>> unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other
>> activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new,
>> network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but
>> which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political
>> discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical,
>> processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of
>> large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and
>> thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary
>> communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and
>> explosive growth.
>>
>> to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of
>> what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party
>> platform. Any child can throw a tantrum.
>>
>>
>Interesting. What the demonstrations around the world on February 15
>showed was that there is great discontent around the world with
>the kind of policies that are being carried out in favor of making
>war against Iraq and in other areas of life.
But what has this to do with netizenship? Let me elaborate, first
saying something that is probably generally acceptable, and then
something that may be less politically correct.
To me,. netizenship involves the process of empowering communications
among all the actors involved in society -- be they individuals,
issue groups, governments, communes, or corporations.
For this communication to be real, it means that the same
communications need to be open to someone whose ideal would be the
eradication of the Iraqi people as to someone whose ideal would be
immediate reparations to them. I am vehemently opposed to the ideas
of Holocaust deniers, but I want that them to be out in the sunlight
of discourse rather than simply forcing them under their rocks.
Governments that ban hate speech, ban revisionist historians of all
flavors, etc., on the Internet, even for the best of reasons, are not
serving people enabled by communication. "Hacktivists," or the US
Justice Department, acting to shut down websites, flood mailing
lists, etc., interfering with expression, is not Netizenship.
A consequence of that is that both commercial spamming and
"hacktivism" are both antithetical to Netizenship, because they
aggressively drain resources and interfere with consensual
communication.
>
[snip comments about specific issues and positions about which
demonstrators were making "demands"] I cannot accept that to have a
specific set of demands about anything other than the communicative
process, and to a a certain extent (see below) the social contract
between those who govern and those who are governed, is a criterion
for good Netizenship.
>
>Also it seems many people want some way of being taken seriously
>by those in their government/s. So that the governments don't
>ignore the desires of the citizens, so that they don't see them
>as the equivalent of a "focus group" would be used by businesses.
"Desires of citizens." Of how many citizens? Or should the loudest
voice be the most important?
Again specifying that the communication MUST be independent of
ideology, what decision-making process are we discussing here? If
it's pure democracy, we need a trusted method of counting votes. Even
ignoring modern communications, I think it's reasonably established
in political science that activists at either end of a spectrum form
a numeric minority. In particular, I'm thinking of civil wars, of
revolutionary movements. In Viet Nam, for example, the majority of
the peasantry simply wanted to be left alone and continue a strong
village and family tradition.
If we are speaking of republican democracy, then it's valid that
citizens can feel their concerns are being heard by their
representatives -- but it's not valid, without an election (even for
referendum or recall), or parliamentary loss of confidence, that
"demands" require instant gratification. Like it or not, a
representative has to answer first to their own conscience. There is
a long history of representatives NOT being responsive to the popular
whim, and having their wisdom validated by history.
>
>People are the citizens. Their government/s should be interested
>in their needs and desires and trying to find ways to implement
>what would be of benefit to the whole population.
Do you seriously expect that ANYTHING will ever be of benefit to the
ENTIRE population? Politics and any realistic decisionmaking process
involve the art of balancing different beliefs, different priorities,
and resource and legal constraints.
I find the phrase "the people" as an actor in a SPECIFIC process, be
that the traditional American indictment "the People versus John
Smith," or the classic "People's Courts" in totalitarian societies,
to be a rather silly concept. The phrase "the people" as a diverse
set of inputs to a balancing process is a very real and valued idea.
>
>[snip comment about what George Bush does or doesn't do.
Netizenship is available to people of all persuasions, or it isn't
netizenship. Again: classic individual democracy protects against
rule of a minority. Representative democracy,. especially with
checks and balances in the system, protects against the tyranny of a
temporary majority. It may also come up with a
least-of-several-evils solution.
Incidentally, while "consensus" rather than voting is beloved of
activist groups, there's abundant social science data showing that in
the absence of additional constraints, there often is tyranny by the
most charismatic or most articulate. This is even true when
obtaining expert opinion from a panel, and the motivation for
developing such methods as Delphi surveys to be sure that all
opinions are presented and considered.
I've participated in a number of Delphi studies, and, while I have
found them intensely irritating at times, am impressed how much
information they elicit. The collaborative-work specialists that
developed Delphi may have even better paradigms, but the idea of
being sure you are getting the right information is one of those
things I _do_ consider extremely relevant to Netizenship.
>
>There are means of communication now that make it possible for
>government officials to communicate with their citizens and
>hear what they say.
>
>More importantly there are ways for citizens to discuss the
>affairs of the society and to therefore find ways to determine
>what would be worthwhile as goals, and then to monitor
>what happens with the efforts to implement these goals.
I applaud this. But there is a difference between communicating and demanding.
>
>It seems that the current government leaders in most countries
>around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how
>these new means of communication like the Internet could be
>helpful in having more effective government and more democratic
>government.
>
[again a complaint about George Bush]
>
>However, with the new means of communication people can talk
>over their reactions and share them and try to find a way
>to make them have some impact.
>
>In a conference at MIT in 1961 about the future of computers,
>C.P.Snow from Britain gave a talk about scientists and decision
>making. He said that if people talk broadly about an issue
>than that issue has a way to filter up to the people who make
>the decisions in a country. He gave as an example the way
>the desire of people in England after WWII for national health
>care and the way it became the law.
Filter up. Not "demand" and expect demands to be gratified.
For the record, I really haven't made up my mind about a need for
military action against Iraq, but also accept that the idea of tough
talk and shows of force can be short-of-war means of enforcing
diplomacy. I do personally reject the idea that any currently
suggested military action is principally targeted against the Iraqi
general people, simply because there is no military, economic, or
diplomatic reason to do so. Targeting leadership and enablers of
leadership is a different matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:14:35 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
- --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thanks Howard for expressing accurately the complexity of the democracy
issue.
Fact is that there is no practical means of assessing the true will of "the
people" in a democracy beyond their choice of representation by suffrage. To
what extent the demonstrators of a demonstration reflect the "general will"
cannot truly be quantified.
Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a specific
intersection or common purpose among a wide array of protesting groups in the
case that these same groups would otherwise pursue radically disparate
causes.
Larry
- --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Thanks Howard for expressing accurately the complexity=
of the democracy issue. <BR>
<BR>
Fact is that there is no practical means of assessing the true will of "the=20=
people" in a democracy beyond their choice of representation by suffrage.&nb=
sp; To what extent the demonstrators of a demonstration reflect the "general=
will" cannot truly be quantified. <BR>
<BR>
Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a specific in=
tersection or common purpose among a wide array of protesting groups in the=20=
case that these same groups would otherwise pursue radically disparate cause=
s. <BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #420
******************************
