Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 503
Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 503
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Then and Now (draft) request for comments
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:06:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] Then and Now (draft) request for comments
Hi,
Ronda has submitted the following article for the upcoming issue of the
Amateur Computerist. It would be helpful to have comments from friendly
readers of this list and also other examples of the importance of
netizenship to people around the world.
Thanks.
Take care.
Jay
Netizens: Then and Now
Introduction:
This year marks the 10 year anniversary of the introduction online of
Michael's article "The Net and the Netizen". In honor of that anniversary
it seems appropriate to look at how this concept has inspired, described
or promoted netizenship around the world in the intervening years.
Search engines turn up almost 100,000 instances of the use of Netizens.
Individual searches combining different countries and "netizens" such as
"Netizens India" or "Netizens Korea", turn up a large number of hits in
each individual country. I want to consider but a few of the examples I
found.
Examples:
1) A paper written by Jane Long and Matthew Allen titled "Hacking the
Undernet" describes the process of privatization of the Internet as one
of invading it. They examine the concept of an online community. They
recognize that the networking architecture which sets a foundation for the
global commons, is often hidden from most researchers who focus only on
the online conversation. Long and Allen object to this limiting and
characterize it as a "narrowing" the meaning and character of the concept
of community. They write:
The narrowing of meaning and association of the term 'community' was
also influenced by a concurrent thread in Internet research concerning
Usenet newsgroups. As with initial forays into Irc research, earlier
ground-breaking research (principally by Hauben & Hauben, 1997) into
Usenet had identified the totality of newsgroup users as a form of
community, 'a world town meeting' or 'the Wonderful World of Usenet
News'. The Haubens also, however, emphasized the technical architectures
through which the overall Usenet system was maintained.
Long and Allen point to other notions of community that narrow the concept
to those on a single newsgroup, or those who use the Internet to support
relationships among people which already exist. In this context they
critique the notion of the Internet as a frontier with settlers. They
write:
"Many problems have been identified with the individualist, libertarian,
and colonising ideologies inherent in the frontier myth (Barbrook &
Cameron, 1995; see also Werry, 1999). An additional concern, not
normally considered, is that describing cyberspace as a frontier
'presumes' the existence of the space into which community developers
and settlers, such as Howard Rheingold, John Perry Barlow, Esther Dyson,
George Gilder, and the multitude of anonymous others, were to move.
However, these self-styled settlers were preceded by another community,
or set of interlinked communities, comprising the engineers and
scientists, hackers and coders, system administrators ('sysadmins')
and operators who -- effectively -- created the virtual terrain later
labelled 'the frontier'. Some who utilise the frontier mythology
regard these creators as the 'natives' to be colonised or even driven
off the frontier (Werry, 1999), but within the metaphor, that still
leaves open (or, rather, hidden) the identity of those who created
the cyber-frontier in the first place."
(The Australian Journal of Communication, vol 28 (3) 2001, pg 37-54)
2) An article in a South Korean newspaper (Digital Chosunilbo - English
Edition) on March 3, 2003 similarly documented how the Internet was making
it possible for people to act as netizens. The Korean president made a
decision to support the U.S. war effort in Iraq. The newspaper article
reports that this decision "has stirred up a flurry of disputes among the
segments of society."
The article then describes the role of the Internet in this dispute:
"Much of the dispute is playing out on the Internet, where
tempers flared after President Roh's televised address on Thursday.
A netizen with the ID of 'small practice' wrote on the Web site
Jinbonuri that 'President Roh violated the constitution by deciding
to dispatch our troops to Iraq.' He created a petition, to which
150 people quickly added their names."
The article continued quoting from another web site:
"The Cheong Wa Dae Web site was swarming with thousands of posts
and emails criticizing the president's decision. One netizen said
that the president had betrayed his people....But other voices supported
Roh. A netizen with the ID 'people' wrote that 'The war is abhorrent,
but as an ally of the U.S., we must not forget that 30,000 American
soldiers are in Korea to secure our nation'."
The article in a very small way documented online discussion among
Internet users in South Korea to discuss whether a planned act of their
government was in the interests of the South Korean people.
The article only gave a few of the posts. The posts themselves, however,
are an important process that shows that governments are not the same as
the people of a country. Though the Internet now makes it possible for
governments to hear the views of their citizens on important policy
questions, most governments do not recognize the importance of these
voices. In general, they don't try to hear from the people of the country
before undertaking actions that they claim are in the best interests of
their citizens.
The Internet and netizens are changing this terrain, however. It is
now possible for governments to support the creation of online processes
where they can hear from their citizens and from netizens around the
world about the national and international response to their plans.
That is a more dynamic process than depending on the voices of a few to
determine the decisions that will affect the many.
3) Another article explored the importance of the concept of netizen for
the people of China. The paper by Jack Linchuan Qiu, about the Internet
and its role in China describes a similar democratic vision for the role
of the Netizen in Chinese society. In his article, "Virtual Censorship in
China: Keeping the Gate Between Cyberspaces"(International Journal of
Communication Law and Policy -- issue 4, Winter 1999/2000), Qiu writes:
"The Internet, as the means of online political communication (OPC),
is not only a stimulent of cross-border interactions but also a
tranquilizer of academic debates.... Some hold that advanced technology
tends to democratization, while others contend it leads to
demoralization.... Today's new medium is the Internet. It sets
the academic agenda with its interactivity, global accessibility,
infinite channel capacity and other pro-democracy properties. It
engulfs the critics of technology, whose voice nearly
disappears...."(pg 1)
Qiu recognizes that the Internet is a platform for many different
activities. He defines netizens, however, as those who utilize the
Internet for online political communication. He writes:
"Politics and ideological content is usually outnumbered by discussions
about technology, economy, entertainment, sports and other topics. In
this sense, only a small portion of China's 4 million Internet users
can be called 'netizens", defined as those who engage in OPC."(pg 9-10)
Qiu observes that there are netizens from within and outside of China
who interact. He writes:
"A special group of netizens is the external users, who enter China's
virtual territory from the outside, playing a key role in linking
China's cyberspace with the global computer network. Most of them
surf domestic websites and exchange information with others as ordinary
users."(pg 10)
Among these users he reports that "some directly oppose the rule of the
Chinese authorities distributing emails with overt anti-ccp content."
The Chinese government web sites, Qiu reports, are not influential,
One reason he proposes is that they "lack interactivity." He writes:
"The websites are designed to facilitate one-way indoctrination
instead of OPC interactions. Seldom do they reflect nonofficial
opinions except when they are hacked." (pg 10)
Discussing the advantages of technical background for Chinese users who
want to engage in online political communication, Qiu writes, "Technical
detours bypassing regulatory obstacles are also possible in the case of
the user who has more computer literacy." (pg 18) And he reports that most
Chinese netizens use pseudonyms to protect themselves from penalties for
expressing their views. (pg 16)
His article raises the question of whether the Chinese netizens will
prevail in their challenge to virtual censorship in China. "It remains
uncertain," Qiu writes, "whether virtual censorship in China will
become more menacing or they will collapse someday leaving online
political communication free at last among the Chinese netizens." (pg
20) The URl for the journal's website is http://www.ijclp.org/ .
4) Looking for a definition of netizens, the online Miriam Webster
dictionary defines a netizen as "an active participant in the on-line
community of the Internet."
5) The Tech Target, "What Is" website, goes further offering two similar
meanings for "netizen".
1. "A citizen who uses the Internet as a way of participating in
political society (for example, exchanging views, providing information,
and voting).
2. "An Internet user who is trying to contribute to the Internet's use and
growth. As a powerful communications medium, the Internet seems to offer
great possibilities for social change. It also creates a new culture and
its own special issues, such as who shall have access to it. The
implication is that the Internet's users, who use and know most about it,
have a responsibility to ensure that is used constructively while also
fostering free speech and open access."
(http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212636,00.html)
6) Chris Mueller, a graduate student, at the University of Berne, in a
thesis on "Electronic Networks and Democracy" (draft October 2002)
describes how the online process of users contributing to the net is
necessary for the net to be a democratic commons. He concludes that this
process needs the hard work of people online.
(http://www.soz.unibe.ch/ii/virt/euricom.pdf)
Those who do some of this hard work, are the online users that Michael
called the netizens.
7) "Netizens Unite", proclaims the title of the editorial in the Times of
India on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. The editorial appeared in the online
edition and also in the print edition on page 14. The editors of this
major newspaper in India write:
"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
later 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."
The editorial documents that there was a basis for a peaceful process
to achieve the ends that the earlier UN resolution had advocated
(whether or not that was a legitimate ends, was not a question raised
however).
Then the editorial asks, "But what can all those around the world who
oppose this mindless militarism do other than feel powerless?"
This is a question essential to Michaels' vision for the concept of
the netizen. What are the means for common people to have power over
the issues that affect their lives, including issues like whether one's
government makes war on another country?
The editorial then proposes a tentative way to look at this problem.
The editors write:
"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
http://no-war.indiatimes.com)
The editorial proposes that opposition to the war, voiced opposition,
is a means of challenging the fact that the opinions of citizens of
many countries were being ignored by their governments if these
governments supported the U.S. attacking Iraq. The result of the
editorial was a continuing discussion on the Times of India web site.
There was condemnation of the US plans to attack Iraq.
The significance of the editorial is that it proposed that people
peacefully discuss their concerns and views. That such activity
might indeed be a weapon in the fight.
The US government did not succeed in its efforts to pressure the
Security Council members into voting to support a military attack on
Iraq. On the Times of India web site, netizens found a way to
contribute to the efforts to prevent the loss of lives that the US
government attack on Iraq would cause.
The editorial and then the online discussion by the Times of India are
not alone in seeing in the concept of Netizen as a way to be responsible
"inhabitants of an increasingly globalised and borderless world" which
the Internet has made possible.
8) It is not only researchers and writers online who have explored and
contributed to the development of the concept of Netizen. There is also
interest in the vision of the netizen in the online art community. For
example, in December of 2002 there appeared on the Net an announcement of
an art exhibit and competition in Rome, Italy. The exhibit was curated by
Valentina Tanni.
The curatrice writes (our translation):
"Netizens is a neologism. It is born from the union of two English
words, net and citizens and is used commonly to define the navigators
of the web. The expression, destined to a great future, was coined in the
book by Michael and Ronda Hauben, authors of an important book about
the social and psychological impact of the Net and of Net communication.
(Actually it is Michael who is responsible for identifying and
developing the concept of netizen -ed.)
Tanni continues:
"It is not enough to be connected to the Internet to be a Netizen. In
order to enter and to become part of this new, diffused society, it is
necessary to pay attention to it, to understand it and to try to improve
it, just as one must do to be part of communities offline. "
(Catalogue of the exhibit "Netizens: cittadini della rete" Sala 1,
Rome, Italy, December 2002., pg 14.)
9) Another writer commenting on the concept of Netizen, shortly after the
concept spread around the Internet, John Svedjedal, in his paper, writes:
"the Net provides new opportunities for discussions, meetings, and
the exchange of ideas. As Michael Hauben...(has) recently remarked,
the Internet provides an 'expansion of what it means to be a social
animal' -- the democratic, helpful human being Michael Hauben has
labeled the Netizen...."
("Busy Being Born or Busy Dying: Networking the Net"
http://www.kb.se/Nvb/Svedjedal/busy14.html)
Conclusion:
These are but of the few ways that the concept of netizen is being
understood and utilized online in the years since Michael first recognized
that there was something besides the technology of the Net that was
important. Among the Internet's users something new was developing,
something new was being born. This new phenomena is what Michael
recognized and he called those who were part of this new phenomena
"netizens". Whether the word had ever been used previously, is not
significant. What is significant is that there was a transformation
occurring. Among the users online, something new had been discovered. This
was that they were able to be part of a new society, and to play an
important role in the birth and development of this new society. This
isn't something idealistic or off in the future. And it isn't something
detached from the offline world and society. The netizen is at the
intersection between the old and the new, between the offline society, and
the online community. The actions that people described in 1992-1993 when
Michael posted his questions about the impact of the Net on people, gave
him an understanding of this new development. This understanding was
captured in a new concept, netizen, made up of the concepts of citizen and
net. And this concept, the new concept of the netizen has gone on to set a
foundation for a more active role for citizens and people online, for a
way that the Internet and its users can influence the old world, the old
institutions, so that the new world of a new millennium can come into
being. We are not there yet. Neither is the concept of netizen a concept
of "utopianism" as some have suggested. Rather there is a living practice,
an experience, and a consciousness developing which is one of the promises
for a better world in the future.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------draft------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:14:28 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Mark: Exactly my feelings. I think everyone's confused, especially at things
which we're not familiar with. But I think we'll learn as we go along and then I
think our postings will become more educated on the subject. Right now I think
we're on to something very important which is Ronda's clarification that the
"infrastructure of the internet has not been privatized". I think Michael's and
Ronda's book does have the answers we seek. It took long and careful research and
hard work (I think to put it mildly) to accomplish its completion and publication.
I really have to dig into it, something I find hard at my age(60) soon to be 61 and
especially understanding the words and terminologies in it, but I have good
reference sources in Jay and Ronda and of course the wonderful information sources
available in the internet.
Take care,
Luis
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> > >[RH] The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
> >
> > [HCB] How do you define the infrastructure? Admistratively only, such as
> > DNS and IP assignment? Routing peering arrangements?
> >
> > How do you refer to the physical plant of routers, fiber cables,
> > dialups, etc., if not infrastructure?
>
> Ah hah! So not only is "privatization" a source of confusion,
> but "infrastructure" is as well.
>
> "Infrastructure" can, in ordinary English, equally well refer to basic services
> and to physical plant (or some combination of the two). Is there some
> controlling definition of "Internet infrastructure" that we can use as a
> reference? or do we just have to work out terms that don't confuse us? (I
> mean, y'all may not be confused, but I still am. But Luis, as a professor, I
> am paid to be confused, so it doesn't bother me! as long as I keep that sense
> of groping toward less confusion....)
>
> Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #503
******************************
