Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 515
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 515
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:23:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Michael created the concept of "netizen" to refer to those who
contribute to the Net, and who have a social perspective that
supports communication and helpfulness.
Though there are others who use the term to denote any net user,
that was not the concept that Michael nor the netizen list has
championed.
It seems more recently that the term "netizen" on the netizen list
is being substituted for "net user".
I am posting Michael's explanation of what he intended with the
concept of netizen and would encourage those on the netizen list
to read it and consider it.
Ronda
Preface
What is a Netizen?
The story of Netizens is an important one. In conducting
research four years ago online to determine people's uses for the
global computer communications network, I became aware that there
was a new social institution, an electronic commons, developing.
It was exciting to explore this new social institution. Others
online shared this excitement. I discovered from those who wrote
me that the people I was writing about were citizens of the Net,
or Netizens.
I started using local bbses in Michigan in 1985. After seven
years of participation on both local hobbiest-run computer
bulletin boards systems, and global Usenet, I began to research
Usenet and the Internet. I found these on-line discussions to be
mentally invigorating and welcoming of thoughtful comments,
questions and discussion. People were also friendly and
considerate of others and their questions. This was a new
environment for me. Little thoughtful conversation was encouraged
in my high school. Since my daily life did not provide places and
people to talk with about real issues and real world topics, I
wondered why the online experience encouraged such discussions
and consideration of others. Where did such a culture spring
from, and how did it arise? During my sophomore year of college
in 1992, I was curious to explore and better understand this new
on-line world.
As part of course work at Columbia University, I explored these
questions. One professor's encouragement helped me to use Usenet and the
Internet as places to conduct research. My research was real
participation in the online community by exploring how and why these
communications forums fuctioned. I posed questions on Usenet, mailing
lists and freenets. Along with these questions, I would attach some
worthwhile preliminary research. People respected my questions and found
the preliminary research helpful. The entire process was one of mutual
respect and sharing of research and ideas. A real notion of `community'
and `participation' takes place. I found that on the Net people
willingly help each other and work together to define and address
issues important to them. These are often important issues which the
conventional media would never cover.
My initial research concerned the origins and development of the
global discussion forum Usenet. For my second paper, I wanted to explore
the larger Net and what it was and its significance. This is when my
research uncovered the remaining details that helped me to recognize the
emergence of Netizens. There are people online who actively contribute
towards the development of the Net. These people understand the
value of collective work and the communal aspects of public
communications. These are the people who discuss and debate topics in
a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide
help to new-comers, who maintain FAQ files and other public information
repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are
people who discuss the nature and role of this new communications
medium. These are the people who as citizens of the Net, I
realized were Netizens. However, these are not all people.
Netizens are not just anyone who comes online, and they are
especially not people who come online for individual gain or
profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is a
service. Rather they are people who understand it takes effort
and action on each and everyone's part to make the Net a
regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are
people who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net,
this new part of our world, a better place. Lurkers are not
Netizens, and vanity home pages are not the work of Netizens.
While lurking or trivial home pages do not harm the Net, they do
not contribute either.
The term Netizen has spread widely since it was first coined. The
genesis comes from net culture based on the original newsgroup naming
conventions. Network wide Usenet newsgroups included net.general for general
discussion, net.auto for discussion of autos, net.bugs for discussion of
unix bug reports, and so on. People who used Usenet would prefix terms
related to the online world with the word NET similar to the newsgroup
terminology. So there would be references to net.gods, net.cops or
net.citzens. My research demonstrated that there were people active
as members of the network, which the term net citizen does not precisely
represent. The word citizen suggests a geographic or national definition
of social membership. The word Netizen reflects the new non-
geographically based social membership. So I contracted the phrase
net.citizen to Netizen.
Two general uses of the term Netizen have developed. The first is a
broad usage to refer to anyone who uses the Net, for whatever purpose.
Thus, the term netizen has been prefixed in some uses with the adjectives
good or bad. The second usage is closer to my understanding. This
definition is used to describe people who care about Usenet and the
bigger Net and work towards building the cooperative and collective
nature which benefits the larger world. These are people who work towards
developing the Net. In this second case, Netizen represents positive
activity, and no adjective need be used. Both uses have spread from the
online community, appearing in newspapers, magazines, television, books
and other off-line media. As more and more people join the online
community and contribute towards the nuturing of the Net and towards the
development of a great shared social wealth, the ideas and values of
Netizenship spread. But with the increasing commercialization and
privitization of the Net, Netizenship is being challenged. During such a
period it is valuable to look back at the pioneering vision and actions
that have helped make the Net possible and examine what lessons they
provide. That is what we have tried to do in these chapters.
Michael Hauben
New York
November 1995
Last Updated: June 12, 1996
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:38:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Quoting Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>:
> It seems more recently that the term "netizen" on the netizen list
> is being substituted for "net user".
Ronda, I believe this is incorrect, but if you were to explain why you think
so, that would be helpful.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:49:20 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
>Michael created the concept of "netizen" to refer to those who
>contribute to the Net, and who have a social perspective that
>supports communication and helpfulness.
>
>Though there are others who use the term to denote any net user,
>that was not the concept that Michael nor the netizen list has
>championed.
>
>It seems more recently that the term "netizen" on the netizen list
>is being substituted for "net user".
I don't see the conflict here. Someone that exactly conforms to
Michael's definition will still need to get a set of resources in
order to participate. The current thread tries to identify what they
will be so it's possible to create specific kinds of access to carry
out their social perspective.
Without the resources, the best perspective in the world can't communicate.
Right now, I'm trying to focus on things I can understand. There is,
for example, no generally accepted definition here of privatization,
of commercialism, or of infrastructure.
Ronda, I'd ask you: how would you transform a "Joe SixPack",
politically apathetic, whose major information input outside work is
entertainment and sports, into a Netizen, from the social standpoint?
I'm not asking for a definition, but an educational, etc. proposal to
involve people that, at present, see no need to be involved -- that
rarely watch even television news.
I do hope that there aren't specific ideological requirements to be a
Netizen -- one can cooperate and be helpful regardless of the
economic or decisionmaking models they endorse. When I work on
providing healthcare and health education through the net, I will
work happily, _within the scope of that effort_, with a capitalist
from the Religious Right and a socialist who believes in collective
decisionmaking.
Now, there is the real-world constraint that real projects require
real resources, and those resources have to be funded. The funding
mechanisms are a legitimate matter of public policy discussion.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Quoting Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>:
>
> > It seems more recently that the term "netizen" on the netizen list
> > is being substituted for "net user".
>Subject: Basic Service for Netizens
>
The post on the list was the above
This is referring to users, *not* to netizens or people who are
citizens of the Net.
This doesn't make any distinctions.
There is a question of what basic services a net user requires,
but that isn't the same as the basic services someone who is
a netizen will need.
When Licklider was proposing his vision for the development of
the network of networks, he spoke about the need for creative
users and for people who would be participants in the development
of the network.
Michael found that that had in fact developed, when he did his
online research that is described in chapter 1 of Netizens -
"The Net and Netizens"
There continue to be people online who consider themselves to be
netizens, or citizens of the net.
As Michael described what he found:
"I posed questions on Usenet, mailing lists and freenets. Along with these
questions, I would attach some worthwhile preliminary research. People
respected my questions and found the preliminary research helpful. The
entire process was one of mutual respect and sharing of research and
ideas. A real notion of `community' and `participation' takes place.
I found that on the Net people willingly help each other and work together
to define and address issues important to them. These are often important
issues which the conventional media would never cover."
What Michael describes is what I found as well when I got on Usenet
in 1992.
However, Michael also distinguished between those he was referring to
as netizens, and those who were net users but not netizens.
His clarification continues to be helpful. He explained:
"These are the people who as citizens of the Net, I
realized were Netizens. However, these are not all people.
Netizens are not just anyone who comes online, and they are
especially not people who come online for individual gain or
profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is a
service. Rather they are people who understand it takes effort
and action on each and everyone's part to make the Net a
regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are
people who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net,
this new part of our world, a better place. Lurkers are not
Netizens, and vanity home pages are not the work of Netizens.
While lurking or trivial home pages do not harm the Net, they do
not contribute either."
There is a difference between those who come online to watch tv or
to create vanity home pages.
These are users, but not in netizens.
The media has called any netuser a netizen, but even dictionaries
like the merriam-webster collegiate dictionary 10th edition
makes the distinction that a netizen is an 'active participant'
in the online commmunity.
There is a reason to have access for all. But that isn't the
same as understanding what netizens will benefit from online.
In the Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens,
Michael proposes "As netizens are those who take responsibility
and care for the Net, the following are proposed to be their rights."
Perhaps it would be useful if you had a look at his proposal and
discussed it.
This was his proposal for netizens, for what netizens need to
be able to contribute and participate.
Two of these rights were
"Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation"
another was "Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from
the contribution freely given by others"
another was "protection of the public purpose from those who would use
it for their private and money making purposes"
> Ronda, I believe this is incorrect, but if you were to explain why you think
> so, that would be helpful.
>
> Mark
>
I hope this is helpful.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 08:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
[I inadvertently sent this reply only to Ronda. I've made one small change:
inserting "think I" in the first sentence.]
Ronda,
I do think I understand the distinction you are making between netizens and net
users, and I have read the documents you refer to. I still _don't_ understand
the _point_ you are making, and most of my confusion will echo Howard's.
However, your post may help us to move forward.
(Howard, I notice that Ronda and I have fallen into talking about "services"
rather than "service." I _think_ the usages are compatible here, but you may
want to make some clarifications here or over on the original thread.)
> >Subject: Basic Service for Netizens
> >
>
> The post on the list was the above
>
> This is referring to users, *not* to netizens or people who are
> citizens of the Net.
>
> This doesn't make any distinctions.
>
> There is a question of what basic services a net user requires,
> but that isn't the same as the basic services someone who is
> a netizen will need.
OK, except that your post never does say explicitly how you think these two
sets of services differ. (I do have a guess about that now, but it's really
not much more than a guess.)
> There is a reason to have access for all. But that isn't the
> same as understanding what netizens will benefit from online.
I agree with this, although I can't tell what it has to do with "basic
services." So I assume that the last part of your message gets at what you
consider basic services for netizens.
> In the Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens,
> Michael proposes "As netizens are those who take responsibility
> and care for the Net, the following are proposed to be their rights."
>
> Perhaps it would be useful if you had a look at his proposal and
> discussed it.
(Actually, as I said obliquely in Howard's thread, I'd like to revive the list
discussion of that declaration, once we have a mechanism for gathering our
comments.)
> This was his proposal for netizens, for what netizens need to
> be able to contribute and participate.
>
> Two of these rights were
>
> "Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation"
>
> another was "Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from
> the contribution freely given by others"
>
> another was "protection of the public purpose from those who would use
> it for their private and money making purposes"
The question of Howard's thread, which I think is an important question
although obviously not the only important question, can be understood as
identifying the basic services that would uphold the public grassroots purpose
and participation. (You may feel, as I do, that some of the services he
identified went beyond that goal; I'll be posting about that on his thread.)
Volunteer contribution is a basis of Net culture; I don't think of it as
a "basic service." (I'm also not sure why it is a "right," but we could
explore that in a thread on netizen rights.)
Clearly I want to protect the public purpose from profit interests, but that
again doesn't help me to identify "basic services."
More generally, I don't usually expect rights, or prevailing values, to be
services. So I don't know whether the phrase "basic service" means something
to you that it doesn't to me.
Notice that I am trying to clarify our differences about basic services (the
meaning of the phrase, and then its content), not whatever differences we might
have about netizen rights or the role of profit.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service for Netizens
OK, this post is limited to my reactions to Howard's six possible services for
basic Netizen participation. As I understand it, the goal of this particular
thread is to identify the network design (broadly understood) and resources
that are required -- and, therefore, the planning required -- in order to
support the basic services that netizenship depends upon.
My response seems to open itself into many possible threads. Another
motivation for cumulation mechanisms -- so we can keep track of what we've
discussed in some depth and what we haven't.
> So let's examine possible services for basic Netizen participation.
>
> 1. Email
>
> Unquestionably a fundamental service. Non-spam email is not
> particularly
> bandwidth intensive, but the limiting factor tends to be disk storage
> for the user mailboxes and intermediate "post office" storage.
> Modern email models download the mail to a personal computer,
> conserving ISP disk space.
> The ISP, however, has to know how much mailbox space to allocate
> to the average user, so they can buy the necessary amount of disk
> storage.
> I believe it is also reasonable for ISPs to impose anti-spamming
> and anti-hacking features on user connections. Anti-spamming does
> not mean that a user can't use large mailing lists (see below).
Although this all seems reasonable, I'm a bit confused about the points being
made. As to ISP mailbox space, it's of course true that Bard needs to decide
how much storage to buy and how large to make my quota (ditto Verizon), but
does this count as a network design issue? Or, to put it quite differently, is
there a policy issue here that netizens would want to take a stand on?
Anti-spam and anti-hacking do seem like issues that netizens would be concerned
about. We might want to _require_ certain anti-spam and/or anti-hacking
protections, and/or we might want to _forbid_ certain restrictions. If this
thread develops, it might be helpful to recast this point so that it's
more "netizens grappling with design and policy" and less "Howard offering
prudential judgments." (I don't mean that I don't want Howard to offer
prudential judgments, only that I'd eventually like to see a strong framework
of issue analysis that stands apart from our individual opinions. In no way is
this a gripe about his post.)
> 2. Mailing list servers
>
> A manageable way to handle large mailing lists is to have an ISP
> user register the list on a majordomo or other mail server, which
> will then send mail into the Internet at a rate that does not cause
> congestion. By preregistering the mailing lists, one takes anonymity
> away from spammers.
OK, mailing lists are good, spam is bad, and it seems relatively easy to
reconcile the two.
> 3. USENET
>
> I consider this a basic service, although it is less popular than
> it once was. As with email, a major concern is disk storage. This is
> a particularly severe problem with USENET, because the largest volume
> is in binary newsgroups. These newsgroups are heavily populated with
> both erotica and pirated software ("warez"), and indeed can create
> legal liability for ISPs. Please don't misunderstand -- I have no
> problem with erotica for consenting adults, as long as the resources
> to provide it aren't heavily subsidized by other users, and that it
> doesn't contain child pornography or copyrighted material. The
> latter two areas can put the ISP at risk.
If I understand rightly, binary newsgroups pose several distinct policy issues
for netizens: the legal and ethical issues associated with pornography [Howard
specifies child pornography, but different netizens and countries will draw
their lines differently], legal and ethical issues associated with copyright,
and brute storage space. All these issues demand attention.
Storage: here (and I suppose back in #1, especially with reference to 'post
office' storage) is a major commons issue. I don't necessarily want to ban
anyone from posting their home videos on USENET and e-mailing them to hapless
relatives, but I also don't see it as an inalienable right with a claim on
public [or private] subsidies.
> 4. Web Access
>
> Again a basic service. Bandwidth is the issue here. Does the
> basic user need fast response and downloads of whatever multimedia
> presentations, of whatever size, an information provider creates?
(Perhaps this is where Ronda concluded that Howard actually meant to
equate "user" and "netizen," etc. Ironically, my guess is that Howard and
Ronda would give the same answer to his question.)
>From the standpoint of netizenship, I'd say absolutely not. In fact, no matter
how much bandwidth we might think that netizens "need" to function as netizens,
some enterprising information provider will think of a multimedia format that
requires more bandwidth. And net users may decide that they "need" that
bandwidth. But that won't necessarily make it a priority for netizens. If
anything, the priority for netizens might be not to get squeezed out by the
streaming multisensory extradimensional Virtual Trans-Reality metamegacacophony.
Bandwidth "requirements" certainly are a moving target. I was thrilled, and
rightly so, when I first moved to a 14.4Kbps dial-up modem. Now I'd feel
crippled by it: 640Kbps "always-on" DSL lets me read mail faster with less
inconvenience, access long research papers, and so forth. It also lets me
experiment with ESPNMotion, and listen to streaming audio of folk music
programs, but that doesn't have much to do with netizenship. I do think that
broadband supports netizenship, although obviously netizens can function
without it. --Anyway, let's elaborate the design and policy issues here.
> 5. Telephony
>
> While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly
> [less] resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require
> dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context.
>
> 6. Television
>
> I'm _not_ going to comment much.
I don't think that voice over IP or television are basic services for
netizens. I'm not even sure that Howard thinks they are basic services for
netizens. (Even if we stipulate that many netizens like to watch TV, that's a
different issue.) Howard does believe, I think, that providing Net and
television services over the same cables will be cost-effective in many
circumstances. That's fine, but I want to make sure that we're not confusing
our requirements with our implementation ideas. I imagine that a non-trivial
number of people around the world are participating in the Internet (often on
public terminals) who don't even own TVs or ordinarily watch television.
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #515
******************************
