Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 489
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 489
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list:
(Was: [netz] censorship)
Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list:
(Was: [netz] censorship)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
Howard,
> I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I wanted to know if
> there was a definition of Netizen in the book that defined, in turn,
> the scope of this list.[...]
>
> Again, purely about the definition of "netizen", which really isn't
> clear. If I quote Jay correctly, he feels that favoring
> self-representation to replace republican democracy is necessary to
> netizenship. It's fair to say that several others, myself included,
> consider that a basic matter of political philosophy that indeed is a
> possible use of the net, but is not inherent to the empowerment
> brought by network-enabled participation
I went to Michael's home page and followed the link to "Further Thoughts on
Netizens," http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CMC/netizen_thoughts.html , which I
shall quote at some length below to avoid misunderstanding. I think the text
below is reasonably consistent with the Netizens book and other sources.
I believe this text indicates that, while Michael believed that the Net offered
important possibilities for political change, he would have agreed with the
view you describe in your last sentence quoted above. Simply, you seem to be a
mainstream Netizen. (Elsewhere Michael elaborates on ways in which Netizens
participate to build up the Net as a resource.)
I'm confused by your "If I quote Jay correctly...." Jay has made strong
statements about the possibility of participatory democracy, but I hadn't
noticed any that I would construe as you have.
Mark
>From "Further Thoughts on Netizens", by Michael Hauben:
Community Networks allow citizens of a community to connect to the global
computer communications network. This enables community members to communicate
with others in their community and with the world. In addition, community
networks often facilitate communications and distribution of information
between citizens about their local and national governments. In democratic
countries, this might facilitate a greater role for citizens in the
governmental process. Community network access should be available for those in
the public sector who are acting as representitives of themselves and their
ideas. Community network access should only be available for those of the
private sector who are contributing to the education or research of the whole
network. Those in the private sector who are only interested in advancing their
own profits should gain access to the Network via other avenues.
Netizens are Net Citizens who utilize the Net from their home, workplace,
school, library, etc. These people are among those who populate the Net, and
make it a resource of human beings. These netizens participate to help make the
Net both an intellectual and a social resource.
The concept of community networking would enable people from around the world
to connect to the Net, and in the process connect to other citizens from around
the world. This in turn would help further the growth of the Net by connecting
a diversity of people who have various opinions, specialties and interests.
This worldwide connection of people and other information resources of
different sorts will help the world move forward in solving different societal
problems.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:16:49 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Netizens netbook and netizens list (Was Re: [netz] Many voices...)
>
>
>I went to Michael's home page and followed the link to "Further Thoughts on
>Netizens," http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CMC/netizen_thoughts.html , which I
>shall quote at some length below to avoid misunderstanding. I think the text
>below is reasonably consistent with the Netizens book and other sources.
>
>I believe this text indicates that, while Michael believed that the
>Net offered
>important possibilities for political change, he would have agreed with the
>view you describe in your last sentence quoted above. Simply, you
>seem to be a
>mainstream Netizen. (Elsewhere Michael elaborates on ways in which Netizens
>participate to build up the Net as a resource.)
>
>I'm confused by your "If I quote Jay correctly...." Jay has made strong
>statements about the possibility of participatory democracy, but I hadn't
>noticed any that I would construe as you have.
I certainly apologize if I have misconstrued, and I haven't gone back
through the posts to get exact wording. My impression had been that
Jay was saying that a commitment to participatory democracy was a
requisite to being a "true netizen."
If I misinterpret that and I'm "mainstream," that's great, I
apologize to Jay, etc. But, as I've posted, the reason I participate
here is certainly to bring up, and ideally to seek solutions for,
specific Net problems that get in the way of network-based
empowerment.
For me, this list is not a place to discuss general political models.
I can and do on other lists, where I'm a fairly equal-opportunity
critic of the assorted resident anarcho-capitalists, politically
oriented Christian fundamentalists, and left radicals.
But I see the value of participating here as less concerned with
representational philosophies, specific governmental policies,
supranational activities that do not directly relate to network
issues, etc., as with the interactions of technology and policy in
the evolution of the Net -- with the constant awareness of being sure
the Net is individual- as well as organization-friendly.
If the majority here wantsm _principally_ to discuss other things at
a more conceptual level, my best wishes to them, but that's not
something I subscribed to do, and will look for a place where my
interests are more pertinent to the discussion and vice versa.
Historical precedents have a role, but that role is to help us find
appropriate solutions for today -- not to point back to "the good old
days" as a model to which we must return, or as horrible examples
that must be anathematized.
Cheers,
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:34:05 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
I just want to revisit Jay's post and explore why I apparently read it
differently than Howard did.
>Hi,
>
>My thought is that netizens are people who through their life and practice
>help to build the Net and spread full access to it.
>
I think that's pretty much the core definition of netizen, and one that
the discussion participants here can broadly assent to. (We may have
some disagreements on the feasibility or means of universal access, but
I think any such disagreements wouldn't keep us from collaborating
across a wide range of issues.)
>Universal access has
>been the goal I have tried to contribute to. That would mean free access
>or at minimal cost. Universal full net access would enable all people, if
>they want, to be part of a world wide discussion of the problems and joys
>of our collective existence and would make available the information and
>opinions to strengthen their participation in the political process.
>
I think this is pretty much factual. To say that universal full net
access would allow people to strengthen their political participation if
they want is a far sight from saying that the goal of netizenship is to
abolish representative government. So nothing Jay has written here or
in other recent posts makes me feel marginalized in my understanding of
the list's purpose.
>There
>are many people around the world who are aiming for similar goals. They
>were the impetus for this list to be founded. No one assigns the right to
>be a netizen. Like citizens in the French revolution, netizens recognize
>each other by their work.
>
I'm guessing that Howard read that "similar goals" (etc.) to mean that
the purpose of the list is a maximal agenda of transforming the
political process -- or something like that. My reading, in the context
of Michael's and others' writings, is that the crucial goals are to
build the Net and spread access to it, so that it can better serve a
wide range of valuable purposes.
Because there has been so much confusion, I will risk boring people by
saying, again, that I am _not_ trying to say that netizens shouldn't
talk about participatory democracy! I _am_ trying to test my perception
that we really do have a non-trivial common purpose. Some of us sound
more utopian than others, but I think we all share a strong intuition
that the Net helps Good Things Happen and we are committed to defending
and expanding those possibilities.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> At 7:16 PM -0400 4/7/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> First, Ronda, let me thank you for what does seem a relevant response
> to some of the issues being raised.
>
> To follow up on your point about introductions, I first communicated
> with you regarding DNS issues and how they affected broad social
> policies such as intellectual property rights, barriers to access,
> etc. It was my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that the focus of
> the list was at the level of policy formulation and technical
> interaction, and finding creative solutions to issues in Internet
> governance.
Yes and as I remember I had posted that those interested in such
areas might join the Netizens list. But that didn't mean that
the netizens list was limited to these areas, but that it included
these isssues.
(...)
> Just to clarify my reasons for belonging or not belonging to a list,
> if the primary focus is to hear about individual experiences, even
> individual empowering, through the Internet, than this isn't the
> place for me. As a working Internet engineer, I encounter this sort
> of this constantly, and don't personally need a list to keep me
> informed of it.
>
> Don't misunderstand -- it may be very useful for people who don't
> work in the same areas I do to have a way of getting this
> information. That could be valuable to many, I agree. It's just not
> valuable to me personally, any more than belonging to a list about
> skydiving (I have no interest in jumping out of a perfectly
> functioning airplane) or salmon cookery (about the only fish I don't
> like).
>
I gave the examples I did as the basis for how Michael developed the
understanding that there were netizens.
Do you feel the concept of netizen is helpful or useful?
For me it has been a goal to strive towards and I have found it helpful.
I have done research with this in mind, research on seeing if there
is any way of having an effect on policy problems like the creating
of an appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure.
But also I am interested in various ways the Internet can help people
have an effect on their society and on the decisions made about issues
that concern them.
Is this where we differ?
> >
> >A number of people who wrote Michael described how the Internet had
> >helped them to do something off line.
>
>
>
> >
> >The whole point is that Michael was looking at and asking his questions
> >about the social character of the Internet, about how the Internet
> >helped people with social problems. For example, on person spoke
> >of how he was able to inform people about price gouging at gas stations
> >because of the Internet.
> >
> >Another spoke of going to a demonstration with lots of other people,
> >because of the Internet.
> >
> >So I don't understand why suddenly there are social topics off limits
> >and the netizens list is being called on to focus on technical issues.
>
> My perception was that the uniqueness of the list was that it dealt
> with the interaction of politics, social policy and technology. If
>
It does deal with that. But there seems to be some difference about
how this manifests itself.
> I'm wrong about that, I will gracefully take my leave and wish
> everyone well, because I have other forms of information about the
> social character of the internet.
My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
while you seem to have a narrower focus.
Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?
I realize you have referred to other issues, but wonder if this
is what you are assuming?
Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.
What Michael specified is that he saw the Internet as a global
commons.
And he did have hopes for this global commons in terms of impacting
society.
Is this of interest to you?
I am trying to understand better what you are wanting and this
seems to be a useful process.
It would be helpful if others also stated what they felt about these
issues.
>
> >That was not its focus and isn't its focus. It is a list about the
> >social impact of the Internet and about the need to spread the Internet
> >to anyone who wants access.
> >
> >Perhaps it would help if people on the list read "The Net and the Netizen:
> >The Impact the Net Has on People's Lives."
I wondered if you have looked at Michael's article "The Net and the
Netizen?"
The emergence of the netizen is an important gift from those who
helped to create the Internet.
Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.
It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
that the netizen is a promise of.
> >
> >This year is the 10th anniversary of Michael posting this article online
> >and the article and the concept of netizen spread as a result of this
> >article.
> >
> >It would seem appropriate for the Netizen list to look at this anniversary
> >and try to understand the significance of the article and of the concept
> >of netizen on the world.
>
> My concern would be that there are so many interactions that the list
> would become so busy as to be unreadable.
>
I would find it wonderful it there were many valuable interactions
and then you could choose to read those with the subject lines
that interested you.
The question for me is how to have the list welcome the valuable
interactions?
How to make it possible to communicate across the boundaries of the
differences to be able to promote the social goal that the netizen
has come to embody?
> >
> >
> >This is more useful than saying something is "off topic".
> >
> >To achieve this, however, a broad focus is needed, not denying posts
> >are useful for this purpose immediately, because they may be like
> >the editorial in the Times of India "Netizens Unite". I still
> >propose that that is something useful to understand the nature
> >of "netizen".
I hope to specify later sometime what I feel is the importance of
the Times of India editorial about netizens. I am writing a piece
about that now for the upcoming issue of the Amateur Computerist
where I tried to take the question of "Netizens: Then and Now"
in honor of the 10th anniversary of Michael posting the article
to the Net.
>
> There's an old proverb that a generalist learns less and less detail
> about more and more subjects, while a specialist learns more and more
> about a lesser number of subjects. Eventually, the generalist knows
> nothing about everything, while the specialist knows everything about
> nothing.
Yes and then there is the Macy conferences on cybernetics where people
from different specialities made the effort to communicate so they
could build on the work done by others. It was a difficult effort,
but worthwhile.
>
> Drawing too broad a focus leads to diluting ideas until nothing is
> discussed in productive depth. Drawing too narrow a focus makes the
> discussion accessible only to specialists.
Yes, so how to recogize that there is value in each, but also a problem.
And my proposal is to welcome the diversity and try to treat it
constructively and to understand how it relates to the concept of
the netizen and the continuing constructive development of the Net.
>
> >
> >
> >Mark, then what would you hope would be the purpose of the list?
> >
> >And others perhaps should answer the same question.
>
> I've tried to answer my perception of that purpose.
Yes I appreciate that.
It would be good to have others respond or participate in the discussion
as well. Perhaps I have to change the subject line then.
>
> >
> >When Michael first created the list he asked people who joined to
> >introduce themselves. I don't remember if he asked people to say
> >why they joined the list, but I would like to ask that.
> >
> >And perhaps we can add, if we have an idea of what to add, what Alex
> >asked about whether there is something worth reading to help determine
> >how to focus the list in a constructive direction.
>
>
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
I've snipped liberally without malicious intent.
> My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
> while you [Howard] seem to have a narrower focus.
>
> Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
> focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?
>
> I realize you have referred to other issues, but wonder if this
> is what you are assuming?
>
> Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.
Yes, but to the extent that Howard raises "technical policy issues," the issues
he raises seem to be the sort such that if we don't get them right, none of the
rest will matter very much.
>From my standpoint, the problem is not that we talk about social policy
issues. It's that we seem to spend so much less time talking about what needs
to be done in order to protect the Net as a social resource. I would like that
to be the central purpose of the Netizens list.
In practice, there seems to be very little overlap between what you, Ronda,
post on and what Howard posts on. If anything, and at the risk of seeming to
play on words, it seems to me that he has posted on a broader range of netizen
issues over the last two months than you (or I) have -- so it is not apparent
to me that you truly have a broader definition of what is important for the
list. (However, none of us can post on everything that we consider important
for the list, so I can't infer what you think is important from what you post
about.)
> Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
> something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
> that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.
>
> It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
> is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
> that the netizen is a promise of.
That sounds a bit mysterious, but of course the topic is a difficult one.
Michael said that the Net was a social resource. I don't think that means (and
I don't assume that you do think it means) that netizens have a single "social
purpose" in the sense of, say, e.g., an agenda for replacing representative
government. The Net facilitates many social purposes. Netizens have many
social purposes. That doesn't mean that we should talk about all of them on
the Netizens list: that's what the Net itself is for. It should be
unimaginable that one list could comprehend _all_ the social purposes that the
Net supports. The distinctive purpose of the Netizens association as I
understood it, as I understand it now when I read Michael's invitation, was to
consider the needs of the Net itself, so that other social purposes could be
fulfilled.
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #489
******************************
