Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 521
From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Apr 29 18:21:13 2003
Date: 29 Apr 2003 18:21:13 -0400
From: Mail System Internal Data <MAILER-DAEMON@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA
X-IMAP: 1051654873 0000000000
Status: RO
This text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not
a real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software.
If deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created
with the data reset to initial values.
From owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu Tue Apr 29 16:46:52 2003
Return-Path: <owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu>
Received: from maillist1.cc.columbia.edu([128.59.40.140]) (21610 bytes) by umcc.ais.org
via sendmail with P:smtp/D:user/T:local
(sender: <owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu>)
id <m19Abzx-000hQ3b@umcc.ais.org>
for <jrh@ais.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
(Smail-3.2.0.111 2000-Feb-17 #1 built 2002-Nov-3)
Received: from maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3TKkVTm012028
for <netizens-digest-outgoing@columbia.edu>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h3TKkU0C012027
for netizens-digest-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200304292046.h3TKkU0C012027@maillist1.cc.columbia.edu>
From: owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu (Netizens-Digest)
To: netizens-digest@columbia.edu
Subject: Netizens-Digest V1 #521
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Sender: owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu
Errors-To: owner-netizens-digest@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: R
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 29 2003 Volume 01 : Number 521
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:37:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> > The original issue that Dan raised was that he had to be able
> > to live so the paid work he did was part of his being a netizen.
>
> > I disagreed.
>
> > Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does
> > something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being
> > a netizen.
>
>
> > But it was after work hours that one's activity protecting
> > the park was part of being a citizen.
>
> Supposing someone joins the local police force because they feel a
> civic duty to protect others and prevent crime? I would call this
> part of citizenship.
Perhaps joining the police force was out of a sense of wanting to
be a citizen.
But would you say that once on the police force the person was acting
as a citizen?
I wouldn't as the citizen is the person who is to be served by
the police person.
In general government employees are supposed to be serving the citizen.
There has to be a line between those who are the citizens and those
who are carrying out the functions of the government.
otherwise the citizen disappears.
And all you have are the government officials serving themselves.
>
> > For example if after work one is in the park and someone comes
> > to set up a stand to sell things and one says that that isn't
> > what a park is for.
>
> Well, this would depend on whether or not there had been laws passed
> that decided what was and was not appropriate use of the park. A
> police officer has the authority to remove someone acting in an
> unlawful manner. A non-police officer can report the unlawful
> activity to a police officer. Both are performing a civic duty.
There are laws and there are statutes.
But actually the citizens have a role to play in all of this.
And there are times, for example, a set of movie cameras etc
descended on Central Park in a place where there are benches and
a pond and a special place where people like to sit.
They had a policeman with them.
Someone spoke to the policeman and complained about the movie
people taking over that area.
They probably had some general sort of permit.
However, after a discussion and hearing the complaints, the movie
people moved to some other area.
This was a situation in which the policeman with them was allowing
them to be there, but the citizens prevailed.
Perhaps it was a gray area in their permit.
But the policeman wasn't the citizen.
There was a role for the police man.
And the movie people were there to make their movie and make their
money from the movie.
And the citizens were there.
>
> Now, I'll grant that there are people who just work for pay without
> any particular interest in anything else
So this is where we agree that there are at least some people working
for pay that are not acting as citizens.
> but everyone is not like
> that. I think this is an area where your definitions of netizenship
> break down.
This is where we do disagree.
Perhaps we can clarify this disagreement more.
I would agree that caring about the Internet as a collaborative
commons is an important part of being a netizen.
And I agree that people who helped to build the Internet who were
supported by government funding in the early days of Internet development
were important contributors to the Internet's development.
But I am not at this point saying they were the netizens who wrote Michael
about their concerns about the Internet's development.
There were indeed some people who had jobs which allowed them to be
online.
This though wasn't the basis for them to be a netizen.
It was that they were committed to the building of the Net as a
collaborative commons and did all they could to do that.
If they had only done that during work time, I wouldn't call them
a netizen.
And I wouldn't say that someone who functions as a netizen *not*
during work time, is then a netizen when they are earning a living.
This is what I thought Dan was proposing.
So perhaps we can clarify this.
But that if one only did work to help to create and develop the
Internet and participated in this development only during hours
when the person was paid, would you say that the person is acting
as a netizen?
Similarly, if a census worker takes her job very seriously and does
her best to do it in a good way to serve the citizens, would you say
that she is acting as a citizen?
Is it you don't see any distinction between public servants -- ie.
people who have jobs as government officials, and the citizens they
are supposed to be serving?
I do see an important distinction.
A good public official does indeed serve the citizens.
But the public official is *not* functioning as a citizen when
they are serving the public.
>
> --gregbo
>
>
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> >
> >But there is a difference between someone who works in a public
> >service role and a citizen who may have to call that person
> >who works in the public service role.
>
> I don't see that being a useful difference.
>
> >
> >For example, I worked in the office at the census for awhile.
> >
> >I was working in public service.
> >
> >It wasn't that I was being a citizen at the time.
> >
> >In the US someone is paid by one's employer to go to jury duty.
>
> Actually, the employer isn't required to pay.
>
> >
> >That is being a citizen.
> >
> >Then one's employer is obligated not to penalize an employee if
> >they need to fulfill their citizen obligations.
> >
> >Would you disagree?
>
> I cannot agree or disagree, because I do not accept your distinction
> of citizenship apparently applying to only unpaid activity.
I did say that people serving on a jury get paid by their employer
even though they are not at work.
But the distinction is not that they are doing their normal work,
but that they are doing citizen work and they are being paid
to do citizen work.
And there is a distinction between the citizen work and the employment
work.
So it isn't that I am saying that citizens cannot be paid for their
work as citizens.
The folks in Greek times who went to serve in decision making were
paid.
But it wasn't that they were just doing their normal job.
Licklider wrote about the need to have citizens pressure their government
to have a good policy that would support a collaborative network.
This was a role for citizens to play.
If a government official during work time helps the citizens, that
is a good thing and what the government official should be doing.
Is it also that you don't see the difference between a public official
who works to serve the citizens and the citizens that person is
working to serve?
>
> >
> >I don't feel it is appropriate that employees don't have rights.
>
> Employees have quite a number of rights, Federally enforced.
Yes but some time they lose their jobs trying to have the rights
and the government doesn't help them to get the jobs back unfortunately.
>
> I regard it as good citizenship when someone acts in what is
> perceived to be the general good, whether they are paid for it or not.
So you would say that the librarian of the city libraries are
citizens in their job?
I would distinguish between them as good librarians and the citizens
who come to the library who they are helpful to.
>
> As far as I can tell, you wouldn't consider the President of the
> United States a citizen, yet the Constitution states citizenship
> requirements as a condition of eligibility.
He has to be a citizen when he applies to run for office.
But he is supposed to be serving the citizens once in office.
Whereas it seems that the current trend is toward the government officials
serving their friends in big corporations or themselves and calling
themselves and their friends the citizens.
I don't agree that they are the citizens.
The government officials are obligated to serve the well being of the
people, of the citizens.
>
> >
> >All of those, however, can act as citizens when they exercise the
> >efforts to do so.
> >
> >there are functions of business and functions of citizenship
> >and they are not the same.
> >
> >Do you disagree?
>
> I disagree completely. As far as I can tell, Ronda, your definition
> of netizenship is completely hostile to capitalism.
>
>
Interesting.
I am talking about democracy and you claim I am "hostile to capitalism".
Is democracy then hostility to capitalism?
The US constitution was created before there were big corporations
and it didn't endow the big corporations with citizenship.
It did grant to the people sovereignty over their government officials.
It did grant this to citizens.
Do you disagree?
Or do you want to turn the discussion into whether or not Ronda is
hostile to capitalism or whether her definition is hostile to
capitalism?
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:06:46 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
Let me try to review what I understand Ronda's definition of netizens
to be, as what I think are a series of subsets:
1. The general population.
1.1 Exclude all people while working at paid jobs.
1.2 Exclude all people while working in elected positions, even if unpaid.
2. Citizens
It is unclear to me if one is only in "citizen" status when performing
"civic" functions, rather than, say, leisure. Civic functions here are
working to the general good.
3. Netizens
That subset of citizens that uses the Internet to enable the performance
of civic functions. This usage must be unpaid.
Am I correct?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:23:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> In general government employees are supposed to be serving the citizen.
> There has to be a line between those who are the citizens and those
> who are carrying out the functions of the government.
> otherwise the citizen disappears.
> And all you have are the government officials serving themselves.
But all government officials don't just serve themselves! Are you
saying that just because some just serve themselves, that we must have
a line betwen those who are citizens and those who (are supposed to)
serve citizens?
If this is what you are saying, I find it at odds with the arguments
made a few days ago (by Jay, as I recall) that discounted the tragedy
of the commons. It seems as if you are arguing that we must "ration"
citizenship to only those who are served, because otherwise the
servers might serve themselves (ie., take more than their fair share).
But getting back to the point I raised earlier, does this help us to
define what basic service should be for netizens, even if they are not
netizens yet?
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Greg Skinner wrote:
> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> > In general government employees are supposed to be serving the citizen.
>
> > There has to be a line between those who are the citizens and those
> > who are carrying out the functions of the government.
>
> > otherwise the citizen disappears.
>
> > And all you have are the government officials serving themselves.
>
> But all government officials don't just serve themselves! Are you
> saying that just because some just serve themselves, that we must have
> a line betwen those who are citizens and those who (are supposed to)
> serve citizens?
That isn't what I am saying.
I am saying that there is a distinction that is a helpful
distinction between citizens and government officials.
That government officials have a duty to serve citizens.
That citizens want to be able to participate to have government
officials carry out their obligations to the citizens.
If one does not distinguish between government officials and citizens
then there is no one for the government officials to serve, no
one to provide the direction for the government officials.
But if the government officials do not recognize that there are
citizens to be served, then the government officials have no
means to be accountable to anyone.
This seems a problem with many current governments and government
officials at present.
They discount the citizens.
But those government officials who are better would welcome citizens
and want to take direction from them.
They, the government officials would *not* claim that they
are the citizens.
>
> If this is what you are saying, I find it at odds with the arguments
> made a few days ago (by Jay, as I recall) that discounted the tragedy
> of the commons. It seems as if you are arguing that we must "ration"
> citizenship to only those who are served, because otherwise the
> servers might serve themselves (ie., take more than their fair share).
>
I didn't think the question of the commons and the question of
a government with citizens and government officials are the same
question.
Do you?
> But getting back to the point I raised earlier, does this help us to
> define what basic service should be for netizens, even if they are not
> netizens yet?
Is there some reason you are not talking about defining basic
service for users?
Is there some reason you have said netizens rather than users?
It would seem that netizens would want there to be basic services
available to all who could become net users.
>
> --gregbo
>
>
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
Dear Howard
I would prefer that you outline your definition of citizen
and netizen and that I outline my own as you don't have
what I am saying accurately.
And I wonder what your position is and why you aren't outlining
that?
I did say that citizens are paid for jury duty in the US.
And that Greek citizens, the first 500 that appeared (I think
that is the number) were paid for their participation
in the Agora.
So it is *not* that I am saying one cannot be paid for a civic
duty.
what is it you are saying?
I am talking about citizens now.
How this relates to netizens is part of a useful discussion.
Do you feel this is useful?
> Am I correct?
>
No.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:17:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
I am going to drop out of the list for a while. I'll still read whatever
comes in, but I don't have time to respond.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:39:25 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Clarification
>Dear Howard
>
>I would prefer that you outline your definition of citizen
>and netizen and that I outline my own as you don't have
>what I am saying accurately.
Ronda,
I often find it useful to paraphrase my understanding of what someone
else is saying, to see where there is a disconnect.
>
>And I wonder what your position is and why you aren't outlining
>that?
A netizen is a citizen who uses the Internet in the pursuit of the
general social good, including participation in the governmental
process. As long as the person's intent is devoted to the social
good, including such things as encouraging universal net access, it
makes no difference if they are paid, hold government office, or any
other economic or political factor.
I do not find the distinction among elected officials, paid workers,
or volunteers to be useful.
>
>I did say that citizens are paid for jury duty in the US.
Actually, they are paid a minimal amount by the government. Their
employer may choose to supplement that amount to the level of their
normal compensation. Many employees do.
But you also said that elected officials are not acting as citizens.
From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to
the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of
that state in which he shall be chosen.
At least in the case of the USA, the Constitution requires
citizenship to be elected President (or Senator, or Representative),
but says nothing about an elected official not being a citizen.
Certainly, the President votes and has the rights of a citizen.
>
>And that Greek citizens, the first 500 that appeared (I think
>that is the number) were paid for their participation
>in the Agora.
>
>So it is *not* that I am saying one cannot be paid for a civic
>duty.
>
>what is it you are saying?
That I am immensely confused about what appears to be a very
restrictive definition of citizenship and netizenship.
>
>I am talking about citizens now.
>
>How this relates to netizens is part of a useful discussion.
>
>Do you feel this is useful?
It's useful in finding out if we have a common basis for discussion.
What I perceive to be your definition of netizenship reminds me
significantly of the original position of the modern Olympics
committee about amateurism. Great athletes like Jim Thorpe were
stripped of their track medals because he had been compensated for
playing semi-professional baseball, which certainly had a limited
connection to the Olympic activity in question.
The Olympic position, however, has evolved over the years,
recognizing that some socialist countries effectively paid their
athletes to compete, and also recognizing that if the world's best
athletes were to compete, professionals should be allowed.
Realistically, most top-level Olympic candidates train full-time and
are supported by other than themselves.
Historically, the original amateurism restrictions came from the
English upper class, who defined sports purity as coming from the
monied classes, if not aristocracy, who didn't sully their hands with
"trade".
If I understand you correctly that one can only exercise netizenship
as a volunteer, I am concerned this excludes many vital and viable
participants in the growth of the social Internet. I hope that either
I misunderstand, or the definition can evolve.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:30:27 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Aac> the Open Source environment? This is beneficial for everyone. Free code
Aac> running on ubiquitous Intel machines that you can easily resurrect from
Aac> university dumpsters.
And there are even really good software packs under GNU/GPC Open
source licence as Open Office. It can process Word documents etc. it's
complete office suite for free. I call this tremendous collaboration.
Aac> You've got a primordial soup going on where tech corporations can scout for
Aac> the best and brightest. Kids can get jobs. We're talking now about kids
Aac> from disadvantaged communities who now have the opportunity for
Aac> self-empowerment.
And again: Also people from economically weaker countries. Many people
in Central and Eastern Europe work for foreign companies, because they
(we) are well educated and cheaper...
This was perhaps off-topic ;-)
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- do you like old games? try: www.the-underdogs.org -*
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #521
******************************
