Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 475
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 475
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Question about the list
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] censorship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:32:39 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list
Hello: And everyone agrees with you, unfortunately even a former brownshirt can
be a netizens. What I do not put up with is that brownshirt trying to enforce
his coercion and censorship tactics in trying to prevent me from posting my
opinions in netizens, or else he will leave or whatever, he will not get away
with that. As far as being a netizen he can remain as long as he likes and post
what he likes, but bearing in mind that I will not be silent to his bullyism,
lack of respect and coercion tactics. He will be challenged, understand? A
Cappito?
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Netizenship has always meant the democratic form of citizenship on
> >> >a broader level or focus, one not narrowed by geography. It doesn't
> >> >seem that the discussion lately has been encouraging of people.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There is a strong sentiment around the world that what the U.S.
> >> >government does when it makes decisions about other countries
> >> >for them, is not in the interests of democracy.
> >>
> >> And the above sentence is one of the things that discourages me. It
> >> contains not one word relating to the Internet or enabling
> >> participation in the political process.
> >
> >Given this reality, the Net is a means for people to try to solve
> >this problem. This means that there are people and the society
> >and the net as a way of making a more helpful intersection between
> >those two.
>
> If I might, then, paraphrase and merge two of your quotes, to avoid a
> specific ideological bias and introduce the interaction of technology
> and social systems:
>
> "Many people around the world dislike the actions of the governments
> of other nations. The Net is a means of enabling those people to have
> their concerns heard on a worldwide level, and potentially to reach
> other people who can exert direct pressures on the decisionmakers
> involved."
>
> One of the things I find unpleasant is that many of your, and other
> examples, seem to focus on the evils of the US. I certainly hope
> that it is not a requirement of being a Netizen to be opposed to US
> government policy.
>
> Let's put it this way -- if some Austrian follower of their far-right
> policy wanted to communicate with neo-Nazis elsewhere in the world,
> believing that ideology to be good, and that person used the net to
> communicate those ideas, I would consider that individual a Netizen.
> Loathsome, perhaps -- but a Netizen. Netizenship, as I see it, does
> not require embracing a particular ideology. It does involve using
> networking to reach larger audiences or to reach decisionmakers that
> are not otherwise reachable.
>
> Do you see the difference between my indented quote and your earlier
> statements? I tried to focus on process rather than ideology. I
> didn't attack a specific country or its policies. I tried to make
> observations that would be useful and encouraging to a wide number of
> people with different viewpoints.
>
> >
> > > I certainly don't think so, unless there is a clear understanding of
> >> how those issues are affected by networking. Let me put that on a
> >> personal basis and point to your reference on health care. I found
> >> out today that I lost my health care benefits.
> >>
> >This is helpful.
> >
> >The early vision that Licklider had for the development of a network
> >of networks, was that it would be a means for people to participate
> >in the development of that network, and in the decisions that government
> >made regarding that development.
>
> What absolutely puzzles me is your emphasis on Licklider, as if there
> is no equivalent current process. On Friday, I communicated
> electronically with my Congressman's office about a continuing and
> potentially general problem in the Social Security Administration.
>
> To take a personal example, my ex-wife and I have agreed that her
> divorce lawyer caused us both incredible and unneeded pain and
> expense, in large part due to state legislation that encouraged the
> attorney in conflict of interest. My ex-wife, Kathleen, and I are
> communicating by phone and email, to prepare a joint letter to the
> relevant state legislators. This letter, which we believe will have
> impact since you usually don't see a divorced couple explaining how a
> divorce lawyer's misconduct drove them back to friendship, is a
> throroughly collaborative process, being edited through word
> processing and electronic mail. We hope to involve others in the
> letter, and we know how to deliver it to the people that actually
> have some influence -- my state senators and delegate (Kathleen no
> longer lives in Virginia, but was even more politically active than I
> was), as well as the committee chairs with jurisdiction over family
> law.
>
> I'm failing to see what is broken in this process.
>
> >
> >
> >These conferences were an effort to look at the connection between
> >living and machine systems and whether doing cross disciplinary
> >communication among scientists in these diverse areas was
> >useful to those in the different disciplines.
>
> Do note this was preceded by Wiener's work in cybernetics, which
> specifically dealt with communication and control in biological and
> machine systems. There's also a substantial body of speculative
> writing, much considerably older, dealing with some of these issues
> in fictional dystopias (e.g., EM Forster's "When the Machine Stops")
> or utopias.
> >
> > > >
> >> >The netizens concept to me is about having a broader means of
> >> >influencing government than what representation provides for.
> >>
> >> Let me say that I'm not convinced that is a good thing, unless the
> >> problem to be solved is better communication with representatives.
> >>
> >>
> >But what if the representatives don't want better communication?
>
> I simply don't see that as a trend, if for no other reason that the
> representatives are learning about their vulnerability when
> network-enabled research, electronic media, and other
> counterpressures are available.
>
> And those representatives do have to run for reelection. If they keep
> getting reelected, maybe the problem is with their constituencies,
> not the representatives.
>
> While I'm hesitant to use a specific example, one might help. I was
> delighted to learn that Congressman Bob Barr chose not to run for
> reelection. The man wanted to forbid or even criminalize pagan
> worship on military bases, and forced major unfunded mandates on my
> community (Arlington, Virginia) to change the road signs to reflect
> his obsession with renaming National Airport to Ronald Reagan Airport.
>
> As much as I found him reprehensible with regard to civil liberties,
> and to the havoc he played with my county budget, I also have to
> recognize that his actions were generally approved of by his rural
> constituency.
>
> It became even harder to look at him in a simplistic manner when I
> learned that he and his wife devoted just about every spare hour, on
> a very private level, to educate and otherwise serve children in the
> poorer areas of Washington, DC.
>
> >What if the representatives only feel they are benefitting from
> >their communication with those who are connected to big corporate
> >interests.
> >
> >What then do people do?
> >
> >Do they stop?
>
> No, they use techniques that work. There are quite a number of such
> techniques, and I'm sure we will find more and more over time. But do
> distinguish between the situation when the representatives simply
> don't agree with your position -- and it may be for reasons of
> conscience, not bribery -- and there isn't large popular support.
>
> I've been defeated on political issues. Generally, I assumed I didn't
> have the votes, not that some conspiracy was depriving me of rights.
>
> I have a sense, Ronda, that our fundamental difference has nothing to
> do with the Internet. Rather, it is that you believe the US political
> system is broken while I do not.
>
> >
> >Or do they explore how to have an impact on their society, whether
> >by creating a press, or by finding a way to have online conferences
> >like the NTIA online conference?
> >
> >What do you propose when representatives decide they only want to
> >communicate with those who can give them large campaign contributions?
>
> From direct experience, make media events of every stupid thing they
> do, organize district opposition, find opposition candidates, work
> with other representatives to block legislation dear to the
> representatives in question, embarrass their contributors, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:47:36 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Howard: For the love of Jesus! (forgive me I do not wish to offend you with the
remark but I happen to be a christian). No one is saying to you that if you are
pro-war, anti-war, pro-Mother Theresa or whatever you would like to be is
against being a netizen. I believe every single netizen cherishes and welcome
your contributions. But you must also accept everyone elses without constantly
interjecting "you're off topic, I don't want to read this, etc. If you keep
posting about "the man in the moon" I'll leave, etc.
Netizens is a democratic forum, it welcomes all sort of ideas. I was pleading
yesterday though that in replies to postings, no name calling be used. When Jay
or Ronda or myself post something about the war in Iraq or in east timbuktu, it
would be nice if you don't resort to insulting remarks like "you're demeaning
yourself by posting this, etc."
I believe that's all Ronda, Jay and I mean. Stay as long as you like, post
whatever you like, tell me you love laissez-faire capitalism ( hope I spelled it
correctly if not please show me the correct spelling) in fact we love to be
educated, love it! However we beg you, let us post in peace and reply , disagree
and if anyone makes the least attempt to censor you or to imply that you do not
belong in netizens because you are in favor of privatization of the internet, I
will fight on your side!
That's all we ask of you.
Lou D.
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >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, 08 Apr 2003 09:11:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship
Hello Mark: As long as you recognize we can all post whatever we want to and my
postings are far and few between except in the last couple of days during our
heated debate that's fine with me. You can post and if I disagree I will reply, I
can post and if you or anyone else disagrees just reply.
The only thing I'd like to see stop and I hopefully it has, is the name calling,
even if it is on yourself or anyone else. That is a special request. Of course in a
democratic forum such as netizens I guess you can call me whatever you like, but
then you can expect angry reactions, which do our list no good. If you think a
posting is off topic, just say so and your opinion will be respected, however it
cannot stop it being posted and sequels to it, because democracy is very much a
part of effective communications. Howard says he's not interested in hearing about
salmon cookery, but he has to respect and understand that I do like salmon,
especially "bagels and salmon" or is it lox, with a bit of cream cheese and if I
decide to post a recipee on it because I believe other netizens can benefit from
it, then it is my right to do so.
I'm glad we agree on other things. Be our educator, I believe you can contribute
many things to the list, but please respect our postings, even if some of them seem
to be off topic and if you do not like them, reply in a respectful manner and your
reply will be most welcome and respected in this forum, your forum, our netizens
forum.
Lou D.
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Quoting Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>:
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course, we don't have any consensus on what counts as "off topic" -- and
> that is a big part of our problem. Or perhaps I should put it more positively:
> we seem to disagree on what is the purpose of the list, what we are trying to
> accomplish together. Not what we have a right to post, but what we are trying
> to achieve through our postings.
>
> However, I earnestly desire that Luis should understand the distinction you are
> make, even if he doesn't agree with your or my own view of what should be "off
> topic," or rather what is "on topic" (since neither of us proposes narrowly to
> enforce topicality). As my strident messages must have made obvious, I am very
> unhappy to have attributed to me (as I assume) the role of trying to "prevent
> anyone from writing or posting his opinions, because they do not agree with the
> opinions of someone else." As I have stated on many occasions, Luis's views of
> the war basically agree with mine -- and I myself have, for better or worse,
> stated those views here. I do of course recognize that Luis's views disagree
> with Howard's, but it is far from the case that I wish to suppress them for
> that reason -- or for any other reason.
>
> Luis, if we've really both been influenced by Gandhi, surely we can do better.
> We both know that Gandhi's conception of violence wasn't limited to the
> physical realm. Could you please try to understand my motives in some terms
> other than trying to censor, suppress, repress, or discourage-from-posting you,
> Ronda, Jay, or anyone else on the list? And if you likewise think that I
> misunderstand your motives, I'm happy to undertake a similar venture.
>
> _If_ we can't reach any agreement whatsoever on the purpose of the list, I
> might as well leave. But I would rather leave without rancor. This is not a
> terrorist threat, this is not (in my mind) bullying, it is a simple
> acknowledgement that I have stolen time from my children today to no good
> purpose, and I don't want to do it again tomorrow and the day after that.
>
> Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #475
******************************
