Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 461
Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 5 2003 Volume 01 : Number 461
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
[netz] XML and mining (was Many voices...)
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] XML and mining (was Many voices...)
[netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens
[netz] Times of India editorial and online discussion
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:56:20 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
At 12:08 PM +0200 4/4/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>Aac> the time of voting. You need to build some universally accessible
>Aac> "intelligent agents" with data mining features.
>
>That's where XML comes to the game, doesn't it?
>
I'd argue that XML is that which puts the ore in economically
accessible deposits, but the discipline of mining it is quite another
matter.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is my mixed metaphor of the day.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:41:56 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] XML and mining (was Many voices...)
HCB> I'd argue that XML is that which puts the ore in economically
HCB> accessible deposits, but the discipline of mining it is quite another
HCB> matter.
You are right, but with XML-based deposits and regular
expressions-based mining mechanisms everything is possible.
I just had an experience with mining from XML document. I created small
mining engine to update exchange rates daily for one site. It needed
to recount Slovak crowns in other currency, so it seemed a good way
how to do it. And actually it works as intended, so I am very
satisfied. Daily currency exchange rates are being listed by National
Bank in XML format, too and that makes it easy to get the rate for
every country required.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- what about 21th century fox? :-) -*
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:50:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> At 11:07 AM -0500 4/4/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> >> >>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
> >>>>
(...)
> >>>>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
> >>>>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
> >>>>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
> >>>>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ronda
> >>
> >
> >
(...)
>
> Consider that I come from an engineering philosophy. I really do
> believe in brainstorming, but, again and again, you'll see me keep
> asking the question, "OK, this is a good idea. Should it be
> implemented, even as a prototype? Who, then, should build it? Is it
> within the resources available to informal groupings of netizens?"
>
Then an appropriate response to the suggestion that there be some
thought given to how netizens view the attack against Iraq
would be there is a need for places where there is the discussion
of views about it?
That sadly didn't happen on the Netizens list when the topic was
introduced.
There was a very interesting discussion on the website of the Times
of India which started with an editorial they had called "Netizens
Unite" on March 4, 2003.
The way netizens can unite is to have discussion of their views
and to hear each other on a topic that is of importance to
citizenship and netizenship.
And the question of whether or not the people of the world, of
any country in the world, support a war against another people,
is a primary question of citizenship.
In South Korea, when the government announced it would support
the US attack on Iraq with troops, some people online challenged
their government saying the war was illegal as it was done without
the sanction of the Security council and it was not in self defense.
There were others who supported the war.
In Switzerland there are those who are saying their government should
be neutral which means not going along with what the US is doing.
To criticize ones government is part of being a citizen.
To debate online or to find ways that the online discussion and critique
of what one's government is doing, is, I propose, also. part of being a
netizen.
The fact that there is a worldwide breach between what governments
are doing with regard to going along with the attack on Iraq and
what people are saying they want done, is part of a phenomenon
that not only affects the people as citizens, but also as netizens.
One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought
to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize
our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the
development of how to make something better.
This is at the essence of citizenship.
I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship.
As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book,
it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he
intended the concept to express responsibility for actions
and participation and taking on that responsibility.
Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure
out what is being done in ones name and participating in the
ways one can find that the activities of ones government are
the activities that benefit people not harm them.
People online discussing the activities of their governments is
taking responsibility for ones obligations as a citizen.
People online sharing how they take the responsibility as a citizen
and how the net can help them to participate as citizens in not
only their own country, but with a view toward the effect on the
world of their government's actions, that is, I propose, connected
with being a netizen.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 12:02:25 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] XML and mining (was Many voices...)
>HCB> I'd argue that XML is that which puts the ore in economically
>HCB> accessible deposits, but the discipline of mining it is quite another
>HCB> matter.
>You are right, but with XML-based deposits and regular
>expressions-based mining mechanisms everything is possible.
[Somewhere in this, there HAS to be the emergence of new folk songs
for data miners with computer-room-pale-faces and virtual shovels]
>
>I just had an experience with mining from XML document. I created small
>mining engine to update exchange rates daily for one site. It needed
>to recount Slovak crowns in other currency, so it seemed a good way
>how to do it. And actually it works as intended, so I am very
>satisfied. Daily currency exchange rates are being listed by National
>Bank in XML format, too and that makes it easy to get the rate for
>every country required.
>
>dan
XML and the voice extension, vXML, are rapidly gaining interest as
the basic means of writing "converged" voice-video-data applications.
Ronda will also find it interesting that XML, rather than
text,.postscript, or nroff, is becoming an acceptable means of
submitting RFC drafts and the like. Of the six-author team that sent
in our last draft, only Elwyn Davies knows enough XML and XML to do
this. I don't.
But the whole area of data mining has potential for individual
Netizens and for groups of netizens trying to generate independent
analysis. Of course, data mining could also be a tool of repression.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:05:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens
Following is the editorial that appeared in the Times of India on
March 4, 2003 about the then threatened war against Iraq. I propose
it is of interest to look at how they viewed the nature of netizens.
There was for more than a month a long discussion about the editorial
which I found of even more interest.
Netizens Unite
[ TUESDAY, MARCH 04, 2003 12:01:13 AM ]
America's threatened war against Iraq has divided the world. First
between the few friendly governments that support its unilateral
action and the many that don't. And second between officialdom on
the one hand and the people on the other.
This latter division is particularly significant because it has
pitted democratically elected governments that back Washington
against the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of their own people.
But none of this has made the slightest difference to president
Bush and his team of hawks. In the Security Council - where a
cleverly-worded resolution, implicitly authorising the use of
military force, awaits approval - Washington has used its immense
diplomatic and financial muscle to browbeat dissenting member-states
into changing their minds. Nor has this carrot and stick approach
remained confined to backdoor official channels. According to a
report published on Sunday in the London-based Observer, Washington
has embarked on an unprecedented 'dirty tricks' campaign - involving
aggressive surveillance, phone intercepts, the works - to force
recalcitrant Council delegates to fall in line. Given the overt and
covert pressures, it seems likely that before the vote on the joint
US-UK ! resolution is finally called, Washington might well have
secured the grudging backing of the required two-thirds majority in
the Council.
In such an eventuality, the three permanent Council members - France,
Russia and China - who have thus far resisted the US war cry, may
well conclude that the price of formally opposing the resolution,
through a veto, is perhaps too heavy to pay. The irony, of course,
is that the US is bent on waging a war just when Iraq has shown
ever greater willingness to cooperate with the UN weapons inspection
programme; the latest being its decision to destroy the Al Samoud
missiles. In other words, contrary to the US position, the case in
favour of extending the time-frame of the inspections regime for a
peaceful disarmament of Iraq is today stronger than ever. But what
can all those around the world who oppose this mindless militarism
do other than feel powerless? We believe that one easily accessible
way for world citizens to protest against this war is literally
a mouse click away. 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. Netizens of the world unite, you've nothing to
lose but your chains of chauvinism.
(To voice your views log on to no-war.indiatimes.com)
================================================================
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/
articleshow?artid=39162787
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:12:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Times of India editorial and online discussion
Another aspect of what is of interest about the Times of India
online editorial on March 4, 2003, was that for more than a month
one could also view the discussion of readers of that editorial.
Recently, however, when I tried to view the discusion I wasn't
able to I wasn't able to access it.
This is also of interest as it shows raises the issue of who controls
the site where one has online discussion.
Among the posts I saw when I was last able to view the discussion
was a proposal of people online that the Indian government should send
troops to help the Iraqi people in the fight against the US and Britain.
Shortly thereafter the online discussion wasn't available online. I don't
know if there is a certain time that the discussion of an article is
online or if there is some other reason I couldn't access the discussion
any longer. I haven't tried in the past few days.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 13:00:42 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> At 11:07 AM -0500 4/4/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >> >>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
>> >>>>
>
> (...)
>
>> >>>>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
>> >>>>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
>> >>>>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
>> >>>>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Ronda
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>(...)
>>
>> Consider that I come from an engineering philosophy. I really do
>> believe in brainstorming, but, again and again, you'll see me keep
>> asking the question, "OK, this is a good idea. Should it be
>> implemented, even as a prototype? Who, then, should build it? Is it
>> within the resources available to informal groupings of netizens?"
>>
>
>Then an appropriate response to the suggestion that there be some
>thought given to how netizens view the attack against Iraq
>would be there is a need for places where there is the discussion
>of views about it?
>
>That sadly didn't happen on the Netizens list when the topic was
>introduced.
Let me draw an analogy to standard practice in aviation. Civilian
aircraft and air traffic control MUST monitor 121.5 MHz, the "guard"
channel. Planes in distress make their MAYDAY calls here, but are
often directed to another, idle frequency for the specific rescue
effort. There are equivalent "guard" or "call setup" channels in
commercial shipping/coast guard and in military operations.
I can see the role of Netizens as a guard channel, where someone can
ask "is there an established channel for discussing XXX." If there is
no such channel, it is an appropriate place to announce the creation
of an ongoing discussion venue, which is quite distinct from citing
specific articles on the issues that do not have a particular Netizen
bias.
>
>There was a very interesting discussion on the website of the Times
>of India which started with an editorial they had called "Netizens
>Unite" on March 4, 2003.
That well may be. Would it not have been more useful to give the URL
rather than editorialize?
>
>The way netizens can unite is to have discussion of their views
>and to hear each other on a topic that is of importance to
>citizenship and netizenship.
>
>And the question of whether or not the people of the world, of
>any country in the world, support a war against another people,
>is a primary question of citizenship.
I do not consider it a primary part of netizenship. Netizenship
activity has succeeded when it helps establish discussion venues for
whatever positions that various citizens want to take. The specific
discussions of illegality, morality, justification, etc., of wars
belong on the specific operational channels, not on "Guard".
"Guard", or the Netizens list, is probably the appropriate place for
discussing Internet structural issues that may help or hurt the
creation of venues for specific political information exchange.
Anonymity versus accountability, intellectual property protection
that interferes with communications that don't involve copyright,
Internet stability and scalability, encryption and restrictions on
its use, authentication of statements, collaborative technology, all
are examplesx of such issues.
[snip several national examples, both pro- and anti-war, because they
don't illustrate anything other than dissatisfaction. If the
Mongolian Peoples' Congress on Yak Protection comes up with a new
paradigm for network-enabled discussion, that's relevant to
Netizenship, but the travails of yaks are not -- and yaks, indeed,
are sort of cute -- I think of them as a species that has transcended
the general hatred of camels and is aspiring to the communicative
empathy of llamas)]
>
>
>To criticize ones government is part of being a citizen.
>
>To debate online or to find ways that the online discussion and critique
>of what one's government is doing, is, I propose, also. part of being a
>netizen.
>
>The fact that there is a worldwide breach between what governments
>are doing with regard to going along with the attack on Iraq and
>what people are saying they want done, is part of a phenomenon
>that not only affects the people as citizens, but also as netizens.
>
>
>One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought
>to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize
>our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the
>development of how to make something better.
Slogans are cheap. Slogans aren't part of a long term solution. Give
me long-term solutions.
>
>This is at the essence of citizenship.
>
>I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship.
I disagree most emphatically. Trying to do both on the same list
causes a loss of focus. The same goal can be achieved with multiple
lists/websites/etc., with a central venue for notification of new
venues rather than discussion of their content.
>
>As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book,
>it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he
>intended the concept to express responsibility for actions
>and participation and taking on that responsibility.
>
>Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure
>out what is being done in ones name and participating in the
>ways one can find that the activities of ones government are
>the activities that benefit people not harm them.
>
>People online discussing the activities of their governments is
>taking responsibility for ones obligations as a citizen.
>
>People online sharing how they take the responsibility as a citizen
>and how the net can help them to participate as citizens in not
>only their own country, but with a view toward the effect on the
>world of their government's actions, that is, I propose, connected
>with being a netizen.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 13:02:56 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Editorial in the Times of India about Netizens
At 12:05 PM -0500 4/5/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Following is the editorial that appeared in the Times of India on
>March 4, 2003 about the then threatened war against Iraq. I propose
>it is of interest to look at how they viewed the nature of netizens.
>There was for more than a month a long discussion about the editorial
>which I found of even more interest.
>
[snip the text of the editorial itself.]
Rhonda, what is relevant to this list is the information below, not
the content of the editorial. You identify an existing forum for
voicing views; why do they have to be repeated on Netizens?
> (To voice your views log on to no-war.indiatimes.com)
>
> ================================================================
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/
> articleshow?artid=39162787
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
(...)
> >
> Let me draw an analogy to standard practice in aviation. Civilian
> aircraft and air traffic control MUST monitor 121.5 MHz, the "guard"
> channel. Planes in distress make their MAYDAY calls here, but are
> often directed to another, idle frequency for the specific rescue
> effort. There are equivalent "guard" or "call setup" channels in
> commercial shipping/coast guard and in military operations.
>
> I can see the role of Netizens as a guard channel, where someone can
> ask "is there an established channel for discussing XXX." If there is
> no such channel, it is an appropriate place to announce the creation
> of an ongoing discussion venue, which is quite distinct from citing
> specific articles on the issues that do not have a particular Netizen
> bias.
Howard, perhaps that is the way you see the Netizens list and I am
glad you post how you see it.
But I feel that considerably narrows down the role of the netizens
list.
>
> >
> >There was a very interesting discussion on the website of the Times
> >of India which started with an editorial they had called "Netizens
> >Unite" on March 4, 2003.
The Times of India called their editorial "Netizens Unite".
This is a major newspaper, actually I am told it is the major
newspaper in India.
If it has an editorial "Netizens Unite" it is a sign of the importance
of the concept of netizens and is, I suggest of interest, to the
netizens list to see how the concept is being used and why.
The editorial didn't say that netizens are a channel to elsewhere.
The editorial pointed out the broader view the netizen has and
the fact that there is a worldwide effort of people to be able to
challenge what their governments are doing.
And that there were certain misrepresentations and presssure used
by the U.S. government in the effort to get the UN security council
to approve the U.S. attack on Iraq.
These didn't succeed in pressuring the UN security council to give
the ok to the US and Britain to invade Iraq.
>
> That well may be. Would it not have been more useful to give the URL
> rather than editorialize?
I thought it was of relevance to this list to look at the editorial.
And when I last looked, the editorial was *no* longer accessible online
at the Times of India, though I don't know whether that was temporary
or permanent.
>
> >
> >The way netizens can unite is to have discussion of their views
> >and to hear each other on a topic that is of importance to
> >citizenship and netizenship.
>
>
>
> >
> >And the question of whether or not the people of the world, of
> >any country in the world, support a war against another people,
> >is a primary question of citizenship.
>
> I do not consider it a primary part of netizenship. Netizenship
> activity has succeeded when it helps establish discussion venues for
> whatever positions that various citizens want to take. The specific
> discussions of illegality, morality, justification, etc., of wars
> belong on the specific operational channels, not on "Guard".
>
> "Guard", or the Netizens list, is probably the appropriate place for
> discussing Internet structural issues that may help or hurt the
> creation of venues for specific political information exchange.
> Anonymity versus accountability, intellectual property protection
> that interferes with communications that don't involve copyright,
> Internet stability and scalability, encryption and restrictions on
> its use, authentication of statements, collaborative technology, all
> are examplesx of such issues.
>
Your definition is interesting and helpful.
But that was *not* Michael's definition when he studied how people
were treating the Internet and the ways they felt about the role of
the online user.
Michael saw the participation of people in extending access to those
for whom such access was difficult, and the active participation of
people in the issues of developing the Internet as part of being
a netizen.
He also wrote about the hope that the Internet would make it possible
for people to be able to participate in and have power over the
affairs that affected their lives because of the Internet.
This is somehow a more proactive participation than telling people
of some channels for discussion.
The war in Iraq not only affects the people in Iraq as a life and
death question. It is the excuse given by some governments to take
away the citizenship rights of people in their own countries.
This results in less power for people over their own lives.
This is the kind of times we are living in.
What are the ways to taking up these problems?
At the very least it is crucial to discuss them and not ignore them
and say they are irrelevant to the Netizens lsit.
>
> [snip several national examples, both pro- and anti-war, because they
> don't illustrate anything other than dissatisfaction. If the
> Mongolian Peoples' Congress on Yak Protection comes up with a new
> paradigm for network-enabled discussion, that's relevant to
> Netizenship, but the travails of yaks are not -- and yaks, indeed,
> are sort of cute -- I think of them as a species that has transcended
> the general hatred of camels and is aspiring to the communicative
> empathy of llamas)]
> >
If the online discussion forum can not continue to exist if
there is a certain discussion, then it is of concern to netizens
What kind of online forums are needed to support the broad ranging
discussion is of concern.
It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
online given the repression that is carried out against others
by the governments in question.
This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
> >
> >To criticize ones government is part of being a citizen.
> >
> >To debate online or to find ways that the online discussion and critique
> >of what one's government is doing, is, I propose, also. part of being a
> >netizen.
> >
> >The fact that there is a worldwide breach between what governments
> >are doing with regard to going along with the attack on Iraq and
> >what people are saying they want done, is part of a phenomenon
> >that not only affects the people as citizens, but also as netizens.
> >
> >
> >One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought
> >to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize
> >our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the
> >development of how to make something better.
>
> Slogans are cheap. Slogans aren't part of a long term solution. Give
> me long-term solutions.
>
No the slogan "We demand the right to criticize our government" is
far from something "cheap."
This is put forward as a goal of some of the change people were fighting
for in Eastern Europe.
To then claim that the US government can take away this right from
the people in the US and that this is being done in the name of
"fighting terrorism" or "promoting democracy" around the world, helps
to show how far the goal of democracy expressed by some of those in
Eastern Europe has been breached by what the US government is doing
at home as part of its war against Iraq.
The concept of Netizens and the effort to spread the conept of netizens is
part of a long term solution. The concept of netizens is to support
people who want to have more power over their own lives, which includes
the right to criticize those with authority over their lives.
> >
> >This is at the essence of citizenship.
> >
> >I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship.
>
>
> I disagree most emphatically. Trying to do both on the same list
> causes a loss of focus. The same goal can be achieved with multiple
> lists/websites/etc., with a central venue for notification of new
> venues rather than discussion of their content.
>
Interesting. I thought you felt that there were other lists that were
too technically oriented.
Also you do have the politech list and other lists that take on
the technical activities and questions of the technical community.
The netizens list is something different.
How do you see it as different?
I wondered if you have had a chance to look at some of what Michael
had written from his research that led him to the conception of
Netizens. It wasn't that he concocted the concept. He developed
the concept to describe the responses of people online to his
questions.
At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
influencing how government makes policy.
These are part of the concept that was being developed.
I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
Do you agree or not?
I will be glad to list the relevant chapters of Netizens to elaborate
on these ideas if there is any way that would be helpful/
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #461
******************************
