Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 490
Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 12 2003 Volume 01 : Number 490
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list:
(Was: [netz] censorship)
[netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list:
(Was: [netz] censorship)
[netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list:
(Was: [netz] censorship)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:08:28 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
JH> My thought is that netizens are people who through their life and practice
JH> help to build the Net and spread full access to it. Universal access has
JH> been the goal I have tried to contribute to. That would mean free access
JH> or at minimal cost. Universal full net access would enable all people, if
Hi Jay,
but it's been already working! Universal access is provided by
public libraries etc. - when I stayed in frisco last summer I visited
the local public library (www.sfpl.org) almost every day and I have to
tell you that there were many homeless people coming in t check their
emails (!), so I think this already exists in States and some other
countries with strong economies. Also in Estonia they have special
street signs pointing to the nearest public internet access point over
there...
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- www.absolutengine.com is a nice publishing system -*
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:38:51 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
At 6:02 PM -0400 4/11/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>I've snipped liberally without malicious intent.
>
>Yes, but to the extent that Howard raises "technical policy issues,"
>the issues
>he raises seem to be the sort such that if we don't get them right,
>none of the
>rest will matter very much.
>
>From my standpoint, the problem is not that we talk about social policy
>issues. It's that we seem to spend so much less time talking about what needs
>to be done in order to protect the Net as a social resource. I
>would like that
>to be the central purpose of the Netizens list.
Mark, that's a very fair statement of what I see as how I want to
contribute to Netizenship. Of course, that's something I can't do by
myself.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> I've snipped liberally without malicious intent.
>
> > My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
> > while you [Howard] seem to have a narrower focus.
> >
> > Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
> > focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?
(...)
> >
> > Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.
>
> Yes, but to the extent that Howard raises "technical policy issues,"
> the issues
> he raises seem to be the sort such that if we don't get them right, none
> of the rest will matter very much.
It seems to me the opposite.
That there are indeed technical policy related lists.
However, if there isn't a sense of a social focus the technical
policy is impossible.
Some of the importance of the vision for the development of
the Internet was that there was a broad vision, and a social
vision.
Now there is the effort to disgard this broad social vision that
Licklider utilized to inspire and encourage the research needed,
and to replace it with a goal like the one that would mirror
how the tv or radio in the US have been developed.
Unless there is both a historical perspective based on the
vision and experience that made it possible to create and
develop an international network of networks, and a social
perspective to help guide the technical developments, then
is only a narrow and limited focus that can't serve future
Internet development.
>
> >From my standpoint, the problem is not that we talk about social policy
> issues. It's that we seem to spend so much less time talking about
> what needs
> to be done in order to protect the Net as a social resource.
> I would like that
> to be the central purpose of the Netizens list.
>
Interesting.
This is something worth discussing.
I have tried to contribute to this discussion on the list by
sharing the struggle over the U.S. government effort to privatize
the Internet's infrastructure by creating ICANN.
But again this is the netizen list.
How can it support people who are trying to function as netizens
in the sense that Michael conceived of the concept.
> In practice, there seems to be very little overlap between what you, Ronda,
> post on and what Howard posts on.
It does at this point seem this is true.
And further that when I post something it has seemed at times to
be misrepresented and the subject changed.
That is obviously not conducive to my posting.
For example, I posted a review from a Romanian computer science
journal about how the book "Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet" is helpful in people becoming netizens.
This was in response to a post that said the book was about the
past and not relevant to the list.
There were a few comments about the book in response and it was good
to see these. However, someone in Romania writing about how
the book "Netizens" helps people to become netizens and also
to learn computer science, would seem something worth discussing.
> If anything, and at the risk of seeming to
> play on words, it seems to me that he has posted on a broader range
> of netizen
> issues over the last two months than you (or I) have --
I thought it was to the contrary, that I have been told that my
posts are not relevant to the concept of netizens and that other
things are introduced.
Are the other things? Or is this a diversion from what are
important issues for netizens to consider.
For example, I originally introduced the question of what would
be an attitude toward the war against Iraq that would be
characteristic of netizens?
A while ago I had been asked by someone to write something about this.
I hadn't written it at the time.
But it was a genuine question and a timely one.
Instead of exploring whether netizens would consider what international
law provisions there are about invading another country, or whether
they would consider if there is an effort to utilize communication
processes (these are some possible criteria), I was told that
this was an inappropriate discussion for the list.
> so it is not apparent
> to me that you truly have a broader definition of what is important for the
> list. (However, none of us can post on everything that we consider important
> for the list, so I can't infer what you think is important from what you post
> about.)
>
I guess I would hope the list would support my efforts to be a netizen.
In the case of the recent efforts to change the subject about
the issues I raise, I don't feel there has been much of such support.
And I would hope the list would help others to act as netizens.
There are times when the list has indeed been very helpful.
When I was struggle against the creation of ICANN, and posting some
of the discussion and debate from others mailing lists on netizens,
one of the people on the netizen list wrote an article about ICANN
and the problems for an online journal.
The article was a valuable summary of the problem.
> > Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
> > something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
> > that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.
> >
> > It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
> > is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
> > that the netizen is a promise of.
>
> That sounds a bit mysterious, but of course the topic is a difficult one.
To simplify, perhaps what I am saying is that I feel that there has
been the expression of a sense of supporting the development of
the Internet, and making it available for all uses.
I think this is open to discussion as well, as I will document when
I post an article I have been working on for the Amateur Computerist
about "Netizens: Then and Now" describing some of the interesting
uses of the concept over the past 10 year period of time since
Michael first introduced it online in 1993.
However, I also would think the Netizens list would be interested
in the emergence and support of the netizen, of those who
take on to support the continuing development of the Net as
a communications medium, and as something that can have an
important impact on society.
The point of as a communications medium, I would suggest is toward the
priority of the Internet continuing to develop as an interactive
communication medium, not as one that replaces the television or
other media that are from the top down, not the bottom up.
>
> Michael said that the Net was a social resource. I don't think that
> means (and
> I don't assume that you do think it means) that netizens have a single
> "social
> purpose" in the sense of, say, e.g., an agenda for replacing representative
> government.
I haven't said that this is the "single social purpose". You are
accurate. But the development of the Internet through an interactive
grassroots process is a model for a more participatory democracy.
This is something that is relevant to the Netizens list, rather than
something that should be discouraged on it.
> The Net facilitates many social purposes. Netizens have many
> social purposes. That doesn't mean that we should talk about all of them on
> the Netizens list: that's what the Net itself is for. It should be
> unimaginable that one list could comprehend _all_ the social purposes
> that the
> Net supports. The distinctive purpose of the Netizens association as I
> understood it, as I understand it now when I read Michael's invitation,
> was to
> consider the needs of the Net itself, so that other social purposes could be
> fulfilled.
>
I agree that the list was formed as part of the battle against the
efforts to divert the Internet from the social goal of its early
visionaries.
This was part of Michael's aim. Also he did feel it important
to support making access available at a low cost or free for
all interested.
However, he also studied and cherished the grassroots democratic
processes that the Internet and Usenet made possible.
And I feel there are others on the Netizens list who cherish these
as well.
These shouldn't be labeled inappropriate for discussion on the list.
> Mark
>
>
Good to try to clarify this.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:30:05 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
At 4:35 PM -0400 4/12/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>
>> I've snipped liberally without malicious intent.
>>
>> > My difference seems to be that I have a broad focus for that definition,
>> > while you [Howard] seem to have a narrower focus.
>> >
>> > Is it that you feel that those issues are relevant only when the
>> > focus for the social policy is mainly the Internet's development?
>
>(...)
>
>> >
>> > Somehow this is the netizens list, not a technical policy list.
>>
>> Yes, but to the extent that Howard raises "technical policy issues,"
>> the issues
>> he raises seem to be the sort such that if we don't get them right, none
>> of the rest will matter very much.
>
>It seems to me the opposite.
>
>That there are indeed technical policy related lists.
>
>However, if there isn't a sense of a social focus the technical
>policy is impossible.
Ronda, I'm not angry. Really, I'm not. I simply am trying to get some
parameters about whether or not it's useful for me to subscribe to
this list.
Understand that with the amount of email I receive, I find it's not
useful for me to subscribe to lists with an extremely broad focus. In
this case, that would mean that the list routinely discussed both
social and technical policy issues.
Part of my utility function is to see if there is a critical mass of
people discussing topics of interest.
I am simply not interested in participating in a discussion of the
social focus of the Internet. Nothing wrong with people doing so,
but it's not an interest of mine. If that's going to be a major focus
here, or if the list is going to split time equally betweent the two
kinds of policy, or if there aren't enough participants to make
meaningful suggestions about a topic, then the list is not right for
me. Might be fine for other people.
My original involvement related to ICANN, so I may have misconstrued
the priorities. I'm simply finding out if this is an innocent case
of "mistaken identity," so I can make a rational decision to leave or
stay, wishing everyone well whatever I do.
>
>
>Unless there is both a historical perspective based on the
>vision and experience that made it possible to create and
>develop an international network of networks, and a social
>perspective to help guide the technical developments, then
>is only a narrow and limited focus that can't serve future
>Internet development.
I certainly won't object to peoples' right to discuss that, but it
simply isn't of interest to me, and I'm only trying to understand if
that will be the main focus of discussion here.
>
>
>>
>> >From my standpoint, the problem is not that we talk about social policy
>> issues. It's that we seem to spend so much less time talking about
>> what needs
>> to be done in order to protect the Net as a social resource.
>> I would like that
>> to be the central purpose of the Netizens list.
>>
>Interesting.
>
>This is something worth discussing.
>
>I have tried to contribute to this discussion on the list by
>sharing the struggle over the U.S. government effort to privatize
>the Internet's infrastructure by creating ICANN.
>
>But again this is the netizen list.
>
>How can it support people who are trying to function as netizens
>in the sense that Michael conceived of the concept.
To me, the best way to support them is to be sure there is a network
for them to use. From my perspective, the infrastructural issues are
not at the level of individual experiences.
It is interesting to me to discuss collaborative tools, _systematic_
means of getting different points of view onto the net, and perhaps
suggest or evaluate effective means of getting that information into
the policy process.
>
>> In practice, there seems to be very little overlap between what you, Ronda,
>> post on and what Howard posts on.
>
>It does at this point seem this is true.
>
>And further that when I post something it has seemed at times to
>be misrepresented and the subject changed.
>
>That is obviously not conducive to my posting.
And if you feel that way, Ronda, it would seem only common courtesy
for me to leave. Since you, Michael and Jay created the list, I feel
it only appropriate to respect your sense of priorities. If those
are your priorities, and my reactions make you feel inhibited about
posting, then it would seem the decent human thing for me to leave.
>
>
>
>> If anything, and at the risk of seeming to
>> play on words, it seems to me that he has posted on a broader range
>> of netizen
>> issues over the last two months than you (or I) have --
>
>I thought it was to the contrary, that I have been told that my
>posts are not relevant to the concept of netizens and that other
>things are introduced.
>
>Are the other things? Or is this a diversion from what are
>important issues for netizens to consider.
And that is the question I keep asking. If there are essentially two
groups of people that want to discuss different topics and there is
minimal overlap between them, then it seems like an amicable divorce
- -- or annulment -- is in order.
>
>For example, I originally introduced the question of what would
>be an attitude toward the war against Iraq that would be
>characteristic of netizens?
>
>A while ago I had been asked by someone to write something about this.
>
>I hadn't written it at the time.
>
>But it was a genuine question and a timely one.
>
>Instead of exploring whether netizens would consider what international
>law provisions there are about invading another country, or whether
>they would consider if there is an effort to utilize communication
>processes (these are some possible criteria), I was told that
>this was an inappropriate discussion for the list.
Respectfully as possible, what people in general consider about law
is social policy and not of interest to me. It is only when the
mechanics of network-enabled communications form a significant part
of the discussion that the list differentiates itself from a general
social or political list.
I could respond better if you were specific about who told you what
and what your response was. I can't respond well "you were told it
was inappropriate."
>
>
>> so it is not apparent
>> to me that you truly have a broader definition of what is important for the
>> list. (However, none of us can post on everything that we
>>consider important
>> for the list, so I can't infer what you think is important from
>>what you post
>> about.)
>>
>
>I guess I would hope the list would support my efforts to be a netizen.
>
>In the case of the recent efforts to change the subject about
>the issues I raise, I don't feel there has been much of such support.
>
>And I would hope the list would help others to act as netizens.
Again, I propose an operational definition of netizenship as some
form of social communication that requires the network for it to
occur.
>
>There are times when the list has indeed been very helpful.
>
>When I was struggle against the creation of ICANN, and posting some
>of the discussion and debate from others mailing lists on netizens,
>one of the people on the netizen list wrote an article about ICANN
>and the problems for an online journal.
>
>The article was a valuable summary of the problem.
I don't really have the history on this so I can't comment. A
question, though -- do I detect that you think of a useful output of
Netizens being creating awareness so that people on the lists will
publish more detailed accounts elsewhere? Again, no criticism if it
does -- I'm just very confused about what the Netizens list, were it
completely successful by your vision, would actually produce.
>
>> > Would you agree? The netizen is *not* just the user trying to get
>> > something for himself or herself. The netizens are those, at least
>> > that is what Michael specified, who have a social purpose in mind.
>> >
>> > It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that
>> > is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
>> > that the netizen is a promise of.
>>
> > That sounds a bit mysterious, but of course the topic is a difficult one.
>
>
>However, I also would think the Netizens list would be interested
>in the emergence and support of the netizen, of those who
>take on to support the continuing development of the Net as
>a communications medium, and as something that can have an
>important impact on society.
>
>The point of as a communications medium, I would suggest is toward the
>priority of the Internet continuing to develop as an interactive
>communication medium, not as one that replaces the television or
>other media that are from the top down, not the bottom up.
That assumption worries me, because the nature of the technology is
that integration of these services is a clear way to make shared
networking cheaper, and thus to decrease the bars to access.
>
>I haven't said that this is the "single social purpose". You are
>accurate. But the development of the Internet through an interactive
>grassroots process is a model for a more participatory democracy.
>
>This is something that is relevant to the Netizens list, rather than
>something that should be discouraged on it.
And if that is the consensus, I'd like to know it. But the limits to
my involement would be to show how the Internet can help all types of
political systems, not only interactive grassroots participatory
democracy -- which, frankly, worries me very much as an alternative
to existing systems.
>
>> The Net facilitates many social purposes. Netizens have many
>> social purposes. That doesn't mean that we should talk about all of them on
>> the Netizens list: that's what the Net itself is for. It should be
>> unimaginable that one list could comprehend _all_ the social purposes
>> that the
>> Net supports. The distinctive purpose of the Netizens association as I
>> understood it, as I understand it now when I read Michael's invitation,
>> was to
>> consider the needs of the Net itself, so that other social purposes could be
>> fulfilled.
>>
>
>I agree that the list was formed as part of the battle against the
>efforts to divert the Internet from the social goal of its early
>visionaries.
Simply said, you and I have a different view of the social goals of
the early visionaries, or perhaps think of a different set of
visionaries or at a different time. I was involved in some of the
early discussions, and the focus was on enabling scientific
information exchange. I tend to associate the more general social
drives with later writers, such as Howard Rheingold. The hypertext
people, from Ted Nelson to Tim Berners-Lee, did have both a technical
and social vision. Kleinrock, for example, didn't. I'm pretty sure
that wasn't an early imperative for Vint Cerf or Barry Wessler or
Larry Roberts or Dan Lynch.
>
>This was part of Michael's aim. Also he did feel it important
>to support making access available at a low cost or free for
>all interested.
And the issue of service integration (television, telephony,
commercial data, public data) is very fundamental to low cost access
being possible.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #490
******************************
