Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 474
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 474
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] privatization
Re: [netz] censorship
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] More or less democracy
Hi,
I am sorry to have not been able to participate in the current debates.
For the record I want to state my position that netizens and netizenship
are closely connected with the quest for participatory democracy. The net
makes possible participation by people in the decisions that effect their
lives. What is needed is a lot of work to achieve this goal, technical
work and political work. What excited Michael in 1992-1993 was that he was
contacted by many people online who were dedicating themselves to achieve
that possibility.
I feel many joined this list because of this goal. It is to me wonderful
that technical and political scientists and others are in the current
debates. But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the
goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the
goal.
In any case I want to draw attention to my sense of the connection between
democracy and the current war and general direction of US policies because
that connection is for me at the essence of netizens and netizenship.
Briefly, whoever committed the horrendous crimes of 9/11/01, whether the
US government itself, something called al Quadea, or other forces, changes
have been justified or explained by those events. The US government policy
makers have argued and acted on the premise that the US had enjoyed too
much democracy. It was too easy here for people to communicate and to
travel and to meet with each other. Also the government has been too
restricted with its options by the various democratic practices that slow
down the processes now needed.
My conclusion is the opposite. That we need more democracy to safe guard
our society. I take the program to lessen democracy as an attack on the
goal of netizenship. Netizens means to me the fight for more democracy not
less.
As an example in my opinion, the war is the result of the failure of
American Democracy. The US media failed to foster a debate on the question
and the representatives to have such a debate. But even absent that
debate, the American people and most people in the world have little say
if their government decides on war. The net makes possible the voicing of
people's opinions or questions or doubts or agreement. But as yet we have
not won the influence of that voicing on the decisions that effect
people's lives. So it is also the failure so far for netizens to get
closer to what I feel is the goal.
I would hope this list could take up clarifying its purpose and working
toward clarifying how we might move toward it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:51:51 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
>Hi,
>
>I am sorry to have not been able to participate in the current debates.
>
>For the record I want to state my position that netizens and netizenship
>are closely connected with the quest for participatory democracy. The net
>makes possible participation by people in the decisions that effect their
>lives. What is needed is a lot of work to achieve this goal, technical
>work and political work. What excited Michael in 1992-1993 was that he was
>contacted by many people online who were dedicating themselves to achieve
>that possibility.
>
>I feel many joined this list because of this goal. It is to me wonderful
>that technical and political scientists and others are in the current
>debates.
The first goal for netizenship has to be having a net. Otherwise,
there is no differentiation between network-enabled and conventional
sociopolitical participation.
>But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the
>goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the
>goal.
Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as
bound to network-enabled participation.
I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear
definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me
this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to
replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based
on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it
does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert
opinion that might not be otherwise available.
>
>In any case I want to draw attention to my sense of the connection between
>democracy and the current war and general direction of US policies because
>that connection is for me at the essence of netizens and netizenship.
I was hesitant about the attack into Iraq, but not into Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, I feel there is no realistic alternative, at this
point, to ousting the Baath leadership of Iraq, and returning control
to the Iraqi people.
Does this make me a non-Netizen? Is there an ideological litmus test
for people who would use the Internet to affect political and social
systems? I don't consider myself pro-war or anti-war, but, as I
understand your usage of terms, I am pro-war. Does that make me a
non-Netizen?
>
>Briefly, whoever committed the horrendous crimes of 9/11/01, whether the
>US government itself, something called al Quadea, or other forces, changes
>have been justified or explained by those events. The US government policy
>makers have argued and acted on the premise that the US had enjoyed too
>much democracy.
_some_ policymakers have argued that. Others have argued strongly otherwise.
Incidentally, I believe that some of the entertainment industry's
extreme measures to protect intellectual property -- and I do believe
in intellectual property rights -- are threats to civil liberties
comparable to excesses in antiterrorist activities. Yet the list
focus seems to stay on the war.
>It was too easy here for people to communicate and to
>travel and to meet with each other. Also the government has been too
>restricted with its options by the various democratic practices that slow
>down the processes now needed.
I have more faith, I suspect, in the self-correcting properties of
the American system than you do. Yes, I agree--the Patriot Act gave
lots of opportunities to restrict civil liberties. John Ashcroft
went beyond any conceivable satire when he draped the breasts of the
statue of Justice -- if he were truly self-consistent, he would have
put her in full burqua.
But I see pressures on policymakers in many fora, from electronic
lists that are seen by people in power, to court actions, to
legislative remedies. No, these won't happen overnight. But
sometimes delay is a good thing, allowing for reflection and for the
passions of the moment to subside.
>
>My conclusion is the opposite. That we need more democracy to safe guard
>our society. I take the program to lessen democracy as an attack on the
>goal of netizenship. Netizens means to me the fight for more democracy not
>less.
>
>As an example in my opinion, the war is the result of the failure of
>American Democracy. The US media failed to foster a debate on the question
>and the representatives to have such a debate.
I have to disagree. The matter was debated in the Congress. What I'm
hearing is you invalidating that debate because it didn't reach the
conclusions you liked.
I voted for Gore. But I accept that I lost and George W. Bush is the
President of the United States. Voting and debate are supposed to be,
I thought, processes whose results are not preordained.
>But even absent that
>debate, the American people and most people in the world have little say
>if their government decides on war. The net makes possible the voicing of
>people's opinions or questions or doubts or agreement. But as yet we have
>not won the influence of that voicing on the decisions that effect
>people's lives. So it is also the failure so far for netizens to get
>closer to what I feel is the goal.
Unless you are incorrect about the strength about antiwar feelings.
Again, it may be a majority agrees, or at least is neutral, on the
decision. Correct me if I misperceive, but I keep hearing from you
that a measurable majority is opposed to the war. While there have
probably been more antiwar demonstrations, polling data, which has a
reasonable accuracy record when elections are not available, do not
seem to support a massive antiwar sentiment. I remember Viet Nam,
and popular opinion was quite different than it is today.
>
>I would hope this list could take up clarifying its purpose and working
>toward clarifying how we might move toward it.
By "its purpose", I hope that you are not saying that its purpose is
simply an antiwar venue.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:01:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Jay, good to hear from you again.
I agree with Howard that the term "participatory democracy" needs to be pinned
down, but I get some glimpses of what I think it means for you.
> > [JH] But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the
> >goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the
> >goal.
>
> [HCB] Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as
> bound to network-enabled participation.[...]
This distinction makes sense to me, and it seems to me that network-enabled
participation better describes what I see as the central focus of the list.
However, that doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't talk about "participatory
democracy," only that we shouldn't assume it as a shared goal. I do think our
talk about participatory democracy is, at least at this stage of human history,
somewhat subsidiary, and that we should aim to spend more time finding ways to
work together on our shared goals than haggling with each other about our
differences. I say, _more_ time, because understanding our differences surely
is useful. We've had some interesting discussions here on political
participation.
(I've cut quite a bit of interesting discussion on democracy and the war, in
the hopes of helping to focus on list scope.)
> >[JH] But even absent that
> >debate, the American people and most people in the world have little say
> >if their government decides on war. The net makes possible the voicing of
> >people's opinions or questions or doubts or agreement. But as yet we have
> >not won the influence of that voicing on the decisions that effect
> >people's lives. So it is also the failure so far for netizens to get
> >closer to what I feel is the goal.
OK, so do I understand that the goal is to give citizens' voices more influence
over major government decisions, of which the war certainly is one example?
(I'm setting aside any disagreement over how much influence citizens have now.)
I am more urgently concerned with how the Net itself is governed than with how
the Net is used to transform government. It is thrilling that the Net is used
for many social purposes that I consider legitimate and wonderful, some having
to do with formal politics, others with concerted social action, others with
mutual aid and comfort. (And, of course, other purposes that I am indifferent
to or abhor.) We can talk about those, too.
Coincidentally, there is an op-ed in today's New York Times describing (in a
small part) how some young Chinese are using the Net to express their support
for the war, in opposition to their government's stand. I feel very fortunate
that I, we, can use the Net to explore a wide range of political and social
beliefs from many parts of the world. This relatively new ability may indeed
transform governments and global politics, although I can't predict how.
But we have to make the Net work, and keep it working, and help it work better,
so that it can continue to serve wonderful social purposes and possibly begin
to serve new ones. Admittedly that's a vague statement, and I'm not sure what
it means. That is why I am on this list. To collaborate with other people who
want to see the Net work and work better, even when we don't always agree on
social purposes.
Clearly the list is not agreed that one social purpose of the Net is to end the
war in Iraq. I am glad that that disagreement has been voiced -- not just
disagreement on the merits of the war itself, but on its relationship to the
work of the list. Recently we have been stuck in a cycle where, loosely
speaking, there seem to be two factions, and each faction to some extent
considers the other side's attempt to explain (why the war matters, or why the
war is off-topic) as an attempt to provoke, coerce, harangue, whatever. Often
it seems that we have become more confused, not less, about each other's
beliefs and motives. This is a challenge.
Best,
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:13:02 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization
Hello: I am not trying to change anything by my statements and you can't change
anything with yours either. I have an opinion, which is I'm not on the sides of
the corporations taking over what's left of the internet. You can have your
"basic law of economy". The corporations haven't been doing too well lately,
producing seemingly endless massive layoffs, bankrupting countries like
Argentina,running economies to the ground charging ruinous interests and
basically creating a bunch of oligarchical bosses, little Sadams who treat
everybody like crap and think they're better than anyone else, etc. In fact
how's czech and slovakia's economy doing lately? Perhaps you can tell us
something about that. And don't get me wrong, I loathed the Warsaw Pact, since
childhood, I don't want to see the commissars back either, they're just as bad
as the corporate bosses.
Luis de Quesada
Dan Duris wrote:
> LDQ> right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
> LDQ> the internet free from privatization and are against government
> LDQ> sponsoring that privatization.
> Who is "we"? I am not part of your "we".
>
> Internet has to be privatized in order to raise enough money to fund
> infrastructure, research etc.
>
> That's the basic law of economy. You can't change this by your
> statements.
>
> PS Nobody said you can't raise enough money to privatize some parts of
> it. There are many publicly owned companies around. Actually,
> almost all of big companies are owned by number of small stock
> holders and then there are also two or three big ones...
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- information sharing, not barring -*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:18:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship
And I will repeat to you what I told you yesterday. How ON TOPIC, were you in your tirades
about totalitarian countries. You were way off topic yourself, but I guess that's ok right?
You have your opinion and I have mine, but do not try to censor mine as I do not censor
yours. I will not sit back and take without a reply. I will post whatever I like and reply
if you like. It is your right to do so since this is a democratic forum, this is America and
this is netizens, Gustav Husak is not in charge here!
Luis de Quesada
Dan Duris wrote:
> LDQ> long time fighter for democracy I know censorship and attempts to censor when I see
> LDQ> it. Its the attempt to prevent anyone from writing or posting his opinions, because
> LDQ> they do not agree with the opinions of someone else. For example if I post asking
>
> This is not about censorship, but about being OFF TOPIC! Netizens
> should concern thing around Internet, that includes technical
> structure, architecture etc., not war on Iraq. Is it so difficult to
> understand that sending messages about war in Iraq to flowers growers
> list is totally OFF TOPIC? Same thing happens here.
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- "sometimes world is like an ink, bitter & black" petra n. -*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:23:41 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Howard: I devoted a great deal of time yesterday to this list and I have to get
some work done. I'm sure that corporations do offer people many benefits, however
the bottom line is I agree with Ronda's and Michael's assessment. Having them
control whatever's left in the internet, is not a good idea to me. You can tell me
how much maintenance costs get into endless economic discussions with me on why it
would be a good idea that corporate vultures take control of the internet. My
answer to you will be the same.No corporate dominance of the internet. Keep the
internet as a collective, where all the people have free access to it. Read
Ronda's assessements on ICANN.
I have to go now.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Howard: I am opposed to the privatization of the internet. Corporations have
> >a way to grabbing what does not belong to them and then once they grab it
> >charging for it of course. I don't trust them and they are not doing too well
> >lately, with all these layoffs, inflation, etc. Look at what happened to
> >television with the cable outfits. Sure cable improved reception but now in
> >areas like NYC if you don't have at least $60 per month to fork over to Time
> >Life and the likes of them, its rabbit ears and lousy reception or don't
> >watch TV at all. The internet is almost half way there anyway. As far as
> >funding is concerned, perhaps you can enlighten me about what's happening
> >right now and how did we get this far without the funding you suggest.
> >Luis
>
> Luis,
>
> To be able to discuss this meaningfully, we will need to agree on
> some definitions. I'm a little confused by what you mean by
> privatization, as if that's an event in the future. Let me explain.
>
> In the US, with the exception of some non-public research networks
> (e.g., ABILENE), all Internet services, once you get outside a
> government or academic campus, are operated by private companies. To
> me, that says the physical Internet already is privatized. ISPs are
> private.
>
> So when you say you are against privatization, it's already happened.
> Are you concerned about monopolistic practices rather than literal
> privatization? Or are your concerns in some other area? Internet
> governance, security, response to attacks, address and name
> assigment, perhaps?
>
> The most expensive part of the Internet (and, indeed, telephone and
> video services) is the physical connection to the end user -- think
> of the copper pairs that come into your home, and over which your
> telephone calls run. Since these pairs have to be installed
> individually, their installation is labor intensive.
>
> Closely associated with this per-customer expense is the expense of
> what loosely can be called the "last mile". There are actually
> several useful subdivisions of this, but think of it as the physical
> wires, cables, fibers, or wireless frequencies that run through the
> streets between the customer premises and the entry point to the
> telecommunications access provider (i.e., phone company, cable TV
> operator, etc.).
>
> In Manhattan, digging trenches for new cable or even running it
> through existing underground ducts is incredibly expensive and
> time-consuming. There are clear disadvantages to every competitive
> company digging its own trenches, so we have a "technical" or
> "natural" monopoly in the last mile. Since these wires get damaged
> and need maintenance, it's not feasible simply to rent them to any
> willing carrier -- there needs to be a single organization that fixes
> them when they break.
>
> Some newer cities -- San Jose is a good example -- put in municipally
> owned "dark fiber" whenever they build a new street or do major
> street repairs, and then lease the fibers. There still is a single
> organization that maintains the cables, but there may be government
> ownership.
>
> When you start getting into long-haul facilities between cities,
> however, these are owned by private companies in North America, and,
> indeed, much of the world. Most European government
> telecommunications monopolies have been privatized, and the consumer
> typically has more choices and lower prices than when there was a
> government monopoly.
>
> In the US, we've never had a government telecommunications monopoly.
> The closest approximation was the role of AT&T between the Kingsbury
> Compromise in 1913 and the Modified Final Judgement in 1975, but even
> that was never a total monopoly.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #474
******************************
