Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 464
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 6 2003 Volume 01 : Number 464
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] The year is 2003
Re: [netz] The year is 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 18:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Ronda,
> Mark - was the conference you attended of interest?
To me, at times, although probably not immediately to the list! I'll think
about that....
> What is the scope of the discussion that you are saying is inappropriate
> for the Netizens list?
I'm actually not sure what you're asking. But I think that cross-talk on the
merits of the war is generally inappropriate (I believe echoing Dan Duris).
Rather than place the emphasis on what to exclude, I would rather put the
emphasis on what we _are_ trying to accomplish here -- which, of course, we
need to decide (assuming that no one is in a position to impose an answer!).
> I am glad you find the article from the Times of India of interest.
>
> It was called "Netizens Unite" and asked that there be online discussion.
>
> That was in some way an interesting prototype, with its problems,
> of some of what Michael and I have found special about the Internet.
>
> People who were in favor of the war also posted to the online
> forum at the Times of India. So it didn't insult people for their
> views, but it did suggest that netizens have a broader viewpoint
> than only what is good for certain national entities.
>
> Why this is called insulting to anyone on the netizens list is
> hard to comprehend.
Ronda, the editorial said, "As inhabitants of an increasingly globalised and
borderless world, they should use the ultimate instrument of supra-nationalism
the Internet to register their opposition and say no to the war." It then
said, "(To voice your views log on to no-war.indiatimes.com)." Personally, if I
wanted to "as[k] that there be online discussion," I think I could do a better
job. No?
But it's to their credit that they provided a forum to which folks of various
opinions (and nationalities) could and did post.
>
> (...)
>
> >
> > there was something that I considered especially interesting or
> > discussion-worthy about the proposed use of the Net. That is actually
> > pretty much what you, Ronda, did when you posted the Times of India
> > editorial -- although under the circumstances, I wish you had done more
> > to say in effect, "Look, this isn't just another anti-war message."
>
> I appreciate your comments about this Mark.
>
> However, there doesn't seem to be much regard for me or for my posts if
> they are only labeled as "another anti-war message."
>
> I would hope those on the list would recognize that and look at
> what is the point of the post, and ask if they don't understand.
>
> I shouldn't have to make excuses or be attacked for what I post.
>
> I don't attack others.
>
> The netizens list is not about attacking people for what they post
> or censoring posts about "Netizens Unite".
>
> I didn't post the article earlier because I didn't have the time
> then to take up the attacks that it was clear would come.
>
> But the article is significantly relevant to what Michael had
> found regarding the role the Net was playing in the larger
> society and for the users who wrote him.
>
> We can talk about this. However, that is not possible if it
> is labeled and dismissed.
>
> The Netizens list is not for a McCarthyism type of response to
> something that is challenging the U.S. government activity in
> making war in Iraq.
>
> It is serious enough that that is happening in the US at present.
>
> Those promoting the war are encouraged and rewarded.
>
> But the war is a problem both internally and externally in the US
> and this is a serious question for netizens.
>
> If there is the question on the netizens list of how to look at
> this question, that could be constructive. But if there is
> the effort to label those who raise the question as a problem,
> then there is a serious form of censorship going on on the
> netizens list.
No, there isn't, and there cannot be: I have no power to censor you in any
meaningful sense of the word. We can killfile each other, or ignore each other,
or leave the list. We can even insult each other, although this thread has been
pretty darn civil by the standards of, say, comp.lang.lisp. (Or Jay can toss
us off the list. Jay is, as far as I know, the only person with any capacity
to "censor" the list, and as far as I know he has shown no inclination to use
it.)
But if you think that you can write of a "McCarthyism type of response" without
anyone feeling insulted or attacked, then I don't understand why. No one is
suggesting that your posts have brought your loyalty into question, or anything
of the sort. No one is suggesting that pro-war opinions belong and anti-war
opinions don't. No one even has proposed censoring or banishing statements on
the war. Several of us _are_ suggesting (more or less) that the purpose of
this list, as we understood it and would like to see it become, is not to
express opinions on the war at all, but rather to contribute to the development
of the Net as, among other things, a safe harbor for political discourse. Is
this view "McCarthyism"?
Clearly several of us are feeling misunderstood at best, and I don't want to
risk ratcheting up the rhetoric by undertaking any further response to this
section of your post.
> I wasn't saying that the netizens list was where the discussion should
> necessarily go on, but references to the discussion and articles
> from the discussion that can be of interest to those on the list
> are important.
>
> However, the opposite has happened.
I think we (severally) have a real, and profound, difference of perception
here. This difference can't be based on our (your and my) different opinions
about the war, since we mostly agree about the war. It would be interesting to
go back through the last several weeks and try to trace when and how this
difference began -- but not interesting enough for me actually to do.
I think part of the difference is hinted at by Howard's statement some time
back (as best I recall it), "It's your list, Ronda." I feel much the same way,
or rather, I feel that this is a Hauben list -- inspired by Michael, owned by
Jay, built up in large part through your personal invitations. You apparently
just don't feel this way. So, while you seem to feel that Howard is abusing
power by threatening to leave the list, I've been increasingly annoyed that I
seemed to be paying more attention to Howard's concerns about list scope than
you and Jay were. And of course the fact that I even mention "you and Jay" may
seem odd to you, while it seems natural to me.
Beyond that, if it's indeed the case that the Netizens list is one of the few
virtual places where you encounter arguments against the war, then no wonder
our perceptions of your posts are so different. You, perhaps, are bravely
standing on principle. From where I sit, it's more like you're pushing
Howard's buttons just to see what he says next. At this point, can you
possibly be surprised that folks might have trouble perceiving the constructive
relevance to the list of an editorial in which maybe 90% of the content is a
critique of the Bush administration? Wouldn't it be generous, if not
pragmatic, to try something a bit different -- perhaps trimming that less
pertinent content (if we can safely assume that by now, at least, everyone on
the list has read, oh, one or two critiques of the Bush administration)?
> > Certainly my e-mail traffic indicates that many people are using the net
> > for political discussion of the war. And I've seen various on-line
> > forums that seem to have some real debate.
>
> It would be good if you list some of these.
Our local paper, the Daily Freeman, has a lightly moderated forum on stories of
the day. The New York Times has probably more heavily moderated forums framed
as discussions of op-ed columns, but there's certainly a large range of views
on the war. Brad DeLong's blog (at j-bradford-delong.net) is one of many that
spawns wide-ranging discussions of the war. These aren't intended to be
representative or the most important.
I don't know, for instance, what political discussion fora exist in AOL land --
it's hard to fathom that lots of people still live there.
> > Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
> > forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single
> > list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader
> > than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if
> > I may call it that).
>
> What is too braod a discussion?
>
> The whole point of the development of the Net, from my study, is
> that the broad focus on many early mailing lists, and on later
> usenet newsgroups etc. was what helped to understand the particulars
> of the issue that was important to identify.
>
> If you limit discussion to a very narrow range, you lose the
> ability to understand any difficult problem.
Actually, my position is that much of the content of your and Jay's posts seems
(to me) to go even beyond the scope of Michael's book. I am very far from
intending to limit discussion to a very narrow range.
But even in my reading, most of the content of (just as an example) the Times
of India editorial hasn't contributed to our ability to understand any
difficult problem.
[big snip of good stuff on multidisciplinary discussion]
> I am glad Howard is interested in a list that is not merely a
> technical list.
>
> But then it is important not to restrict the list to the kinds
> of concerns that technical lists are restricted to.
If this were a technical list (as I and apparently Howard understand the term),
I would have nothing to say and, alas, probably little to learn. Perhaps this
proves your point that words mean different things to different people!
>From my vantage, Howard is very interested in issues of the Net's institutional
governance and development, and has tried to initiate many threads about them.
You are, too -- but many details of institutional design seem not to interest
you very much. To you, perhaps, those issues are "technical."
> It is fine to suggest how the list could limit itself, but
> also to hear from others and consider what they are saying
> and ask.
>
> That so far isn't happening.
I think it is just beginning.
> > (The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does
> > seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
> > view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
>
> And the privatizing of the Internet's infrastructure now.
Yes, absolutely.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 19:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] The year is 2003
Lots of interesting things in Howard's post, but I'm just going to offer three
quick responses (looking forward to Ronda's response also).
> >> If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
> >> probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
> >> us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
> >> doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
> > > discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
>
> Then isn't it reasonable for the list to talk about how such forums
> could be created? And whether there is credible evidence of
> government reprisals? I've been quite explicit about my objections to
> certain aspects of politicomilitary policy, and the Men in Black
> haven't mentioned any concern.
Just so we're clear, the first paragraph here was my query to Ronda. Her
response was, "I wasn't saying that the netizens list was where the discussion
should necessarily go on, but references to the discussion and articles from
the discussion that can be of interest to those on the list are important."
That could be an important point of partial convergence. Although I'm still
puzzled about why Ronda would think that the geopolitical critique in the Times
of India editorial would, itself, be useful to us. We might be more interested
in (1) the brief discussion of netizens / "global citizens" and (2) the
existence of the forum.
Yes, I think both Howard's questions are good ones (and I, too, have been quite
explicit about my objections to various policies, as have many others).
> No, Ronda. Trying to keep this technical, you seem to have great
> difficulty in understanding that new forms of communication have
> evolved, quite successfully, as the Net grew. Something that worked
> well in a colonial town meeting doesn't necessarily scale to a major
> industrialized representative democracy."
Although I can't speak to the colonial period, even town meetings typically
have some notion of agenda and germaneness. But I'm still confused: Howard, do
you think that your discussion with Larry about ways of using the Internet to
improve political representation (slightly more specifically, communication
with policymakers) should have been non-germane for the list? (I don't think
that issues of scale in a major industrialized representative democracy
necessarily shed much light on our specific issue [and anyway, we're an
international list].)
If you _don't_ think that thread was non-germane for the list, then what part
of Michael's Netizens scope do you think should be non-germane? Because it
seems to me that that thread went well beyond the "Guard" role, in a way that
didn't trouble me. Cf....
> >> However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net
> in
> >> influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
> > > role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
> >> clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
> > > too broad for the list.
>
> Going back to my guard channel analogy, it's worth identifying the
> issues, and either creating or referring to specific "committees"
> that can come back with specific, implementable proposals.
OK. Given the current nature of the list, this distinction doesn't seem to
matter much right now, but if we think of a netizens project with many
participants, it would make sense to try to divide lists along task lines so
that people can choose how many domains they want to try to keep up with. In
the meantime, our role of "identifying the issues" might not be so different
from Ronda's warning against premature narrowing. Or maybe it is.
> >> (The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it,
> does
> >> seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
> >> view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
>
> I think so -- I'm just a little confused about what to say about a
> relatively long-ago event.
Fair enough. I'm more interested in current issues (which, of course, may be
illuminated by past issues).
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 22:05:39 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The year is 2003
At 7:32 PM -0400 4/6/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>Lots of interesting things in Howard's post, but I'm just going to offer three
>quick responses (looking forward to Ronda's response also).
>
>> >> If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
>> >> probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
>> >> us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
>> >> doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
>> > > discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
>>
>> Then isn't it reasonable for the list to talk about how such forums
>> could be created? And whether there is credible evidence of
>> government reprisals? I've been quite explicit about my objections to
>> certain aspects of politicomilitary policy, and the Men in Black
>> haven't mentioned any concern.
>
>Just so we're clear, the first paragraph here was my query to Ronda. Her
>response was, "I wasn't saying that the netizens list was where the discussion
>should necessarily go on, but references to the discussion and articles from
>the discussion that can be of interest to those on the list are important."
>That could be an important point of partial convergence. Although I'm still
>puzzled about why Ronda would think that the geopolitical critique
>in the Times
>of India editorial would, itself, be useful to us. We might be more
>interested
>in (1) the brief discussion of netizens / "global citizens" and (2) the
>existence of the forum.
>
>Yes, I think both Howard's questions are good ones (and I, too, have
>been quite
>explicit about my objections to various policies, as have many others).
>
>> No, Ronda. Trying to keep this technical, you seem to have great
>> difficulty in understanding that new forms of communication have
>> evolved, quite successfully, as the Net grew. Something that worked
>> well in a colonial town meeting doesn't necessarily scale to a major
>> industrialized representative democracy."
>
>Although I can't speak to the colonial period, even town meetings typically
>have some notion of agenda and germaneness.
*sigh* I should introduce you to our two chronic and resident
gadflies at the Arlington County, Virginia, board meetings -- a board
that is amazingly tolerant of long-winded and often pointless
speeches.
>But I'm still confused: Howard, do
>you think that your discussion with Larry about ways of using the Internet to
>improve political representation (slightly more specifically, communication
>with policymakers) should have been non-germane for the list? (I don't think
>that issues of scale in a major industrialized representative democracy
>necessarily shed much light on our specific issue [and anyway, we're an
>international list].)
To be honest, I'm a little lost now on what I said in response to
whom. Let me try to say what I meant. I cited the town meeting as a
perfectly viable means of democratic expression that fails to scale
for larger electorates. The traditional republic was a response to
both the mechanics of discussion and the structuring of discussion.
My perception of the principal goals of the list are:
1. Ensuring the continued operation of the list given political, social
and economic pressures on it. Without an operating network, political
communications over it become moot.
2. Discovering and encouraging means of political and issue communication
through network-enabled technology, means which may offer new paradigms
for conveying information to policymakers and for developing consensus
among and proposals from the governed.
Does that help?
>
>If you _don't_ think that thread was non-germane for the list, then what part
>of Michael's Netizens scope do you think should be non-germane?
1. Methodologies that have passed their level of usefulness due to sheer
process/size limitations
2. The idea that issues of concern to a community -- call it the worldwide
net -- are properly discussed in the venue for developing methods and
procedures for communication, a venue that also examines and tries to deal
with generic obstacles to communication. A perhaps flawed analogy is that
the committee that draws up the judging procedure for figure skating is
not the place to discuss, in detail, examples of bad judging other than
to analyze how their process failed and how to avoid those failures in
the future. It isn't the place to say that the Canadian pair was robbed
by a French judge bribed by the Russian proxy of the Algerians (AFAIK,
Algeria has no particular interest in figure skating).
>Because it
>seems to me that that thread went well beyond the "Guard" role, in a way that
>didn't trouble me. Cf....
>
>> >> However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net
>> in
>> >> influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
>> > > role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
>> >> clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
>> > > too broad for the list.
>>
>> Going back to my guard channel analogy, it's worth identifying the
>> issues, and either creating or referring to specific "committees"
>> that can come back with specific, implementable proposals.
>
>OK. Given the current nature of the list, this distinction doesn't seem to
>matter much right now, but if we think of a netizens project with many
>participants, it would make sense to try to divide lists along task lines so
>that people can choose how many domains they want to try to keep up with. In
>the meantime, our role of "identifying the issues" might not be so different
>from Ronda's warning against premature narrowing. Or maybe it is.
Premature narrowing is a problem if issues aren't identified. Once
the issues are identified, however, the detailed discussion of those
issues may or may not be germane. My rough rule is they are germane
if they pertain to issue-independent process, but not germane if they
deal with specific ideological, governmental, etc., concerns.
>
>> >> (The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it,
>> does
>> >> seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
>> >> view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
>>
>> I think so -- I'm just a little confused about what to say about a
>> relatively long-ago event.
>
>Fair enough. I'm more interested in current issues (which, of course, may be
>illuminated by past issues).
>
>Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #464
******************************
