The Amateur

Computerist

Summer 2025 Michael Hauben -- The Net and Netizens Volume 40 No. 1

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Researching the “Net” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Vision of Interactive Computing and the Future. . . Page 5

Computer as a Communications Device . . . . . . . . Page 9

Chapter 1 The Net and Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11

Significance of the Net and the Netizens . . . . . . . Page 27

Netizens Providing Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34

Communication Not Annihilation,. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

Introduction

In 1992–1993, Michael Hauben did preliminary

research and had some online discussion leading to the

creation and development of the concept of net-

izenship, a new form of citizenship, that was develop-

ing along with the development and spread of the

Internet. He raised several questions and wrote some

brief responses which helped to give a background to

the vision of how the Internet might help give a

direction for a broader grassroots participation in the

future of society.

In an outline post he titled “The Vision Behind

Today’s Global Computer Networks,” he wrote:

I. The Question

The question I approached was the following;

“What was the vision which influenced the develop-

ment and growth of the global computer Network, and

does that vision still guide the Net?” or “What advance

does Computer Communication represent to our soc-

iety?”

He explained that he posted a message to

several online groups to get people’s thoughts about

these questions.

This issue collects some of Michael Hauben’s

writing based on his preliminary research.

It also includes an article that looks at the

significance of Hauben’s research. The article, “Con-

siderations on the Significance of the Net and the

Netizens,” proposes that what is being born along with

the Internet is a new model for democracy based on the

emergence of the netizen. The articles in this issue

introduce some of the characteristics of this new model

for democracy.

[Editor’s Note: The following is a speech given on April 24, 1994

to the Columbia University ACM Student Chapter. It was based

on “The Net and the Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People’s

Lives,”* which was first posted online on July 6, 1993 and

became Chapter 1 of the book, Netizens: on the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. The fifth article in this issue is

the version which appeared online on January 12, 1994 and was

the version on which Michael Hauben based his speech.]

Researching the “Net”:

The Evolution of Usenet News and the

Significance of the Global

Computer Network

by Michael Hauben

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Neti-

zen, or a Net Citizen, and you exist as a citizen of the

world thanks to the global connectivity that the Net

makes possible. You consider everyone as your com-

patriot. You physically live in one country, but you are

in contact with much of the world via the global com-

puter network. Virtually you live next door to every

other single Netizen in the world. Geographical sep-

aration is replaced by existence in the same virtual

space.

The situation I describe is only a prediction of

the future, but a large part of the necessary infrastruc-

ture currently exists. The Net — or the Internet, BIT-

NET, FIDOnet, other physical networks, Usenet,

VMSnet, and other logical networks and so on — has

rapidly grown to cover all the developed countries in

the world. Every day more computers attach to the

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

existing networks and every new computer adds to the

user base — at least twenty-five million people are

interconnected today. Why do all these people pass

their time sitting in front of a computer typing away?

They have very good reason to! Twenty-five million

people plus have very good reason not to be wrong.

We are seeing a revitalization of society. The

frameworks are being redesigned from the bottom up.

A new, more democratic world is becoming possible.

According to one user, the Net has “immeasurably

increased the quality of … life.” The Net seems to

open a new lease on life for people. Social connections

which were never before possible, or which were

relatively hard to achieve, are now facilitated by the

Net. Geography and time no longer are boundaries.

Social limitations and conventions no longer prevent

potential friendships or partnerships. In this manner,

Netizens are meeting other Netizens from far-away

and close by that they might never have met without

the Net.

A new world of connections between people —

either privately from individual to individual or pub-

licly from individuals to the collective mass of many

on the net — is possible. The old model of central

distribution of information from the Network Broad-

casting or Publication Company is being questioned

and challenged. The top-down model of information

being distributed by a few for mass-consumption is no

longer the only News. Netnews brings the power of the

reporter to the Netizen. People now have the ability to

broadcast their observations or questions around the

world and have other people respond. The computer

networks form a new grassroots connection that allows

the excluded sections of society to have a voice. This

new medium is unprecedented. Previous grassroots

media have existed for much smaller-sized selections

of people. The model of the Net proves the old way

does not have to be the only way of networking. The

Net extends the idea of networking — of making

connections with strangers that prove to be advanta-

geous to one or both parties.

The complete connection of the body of citi-

zens of the world that the Net makes possible does not

exist as of today, and it will definitely be a fight to

make access to the Net open and available to all.

However, in the future, we might be seeing the possi-

ble expansion of what it means to be a social animal.

Practically every single individual on the Net today is

available to every other person on the Net. Interna-

tional connection coexists on the same level with local

connection. Also, the computer networks allow a more

advanced connection between the people who are com-

municating. With computer communication systems,

information or thoughts are connected to people’s

names and electronic-mail addresses. On the Net, one

can connect to others who have similar interests or

whose thought processes they enjoy.

Netizens make it a point to be helpful and

friendly — if they feel it to be worthwhile. Many Net-

izens feel they have an obligation to be helpful and

answer queries and followup on discussions to put

their opinion into the pot of opinions. Over a period of

time the voluntary contributions to the Net have built

it into a useful connection to other people around the

world. The Net can be a helpful medium to understand

the world. Only by seeing all points of view can any

one person attempt to figure out either their own po-

sition on a topic or in the end, the truth.

Net Society differs from off line society by

welcoming intellectual activity. People are encouraged

to have things on their mind and to present those ideas

to the Net. People are allowed to be intellectually

interesting and interested. This intellectual activity

forms a major part of the online information that is

carried by the various computer networks. Netizens

can interact with other people to help add to or alter

that information. Brain-storming between varieties of

people produces robust thinking. Information is no

longer a fixed commodity or resource on the Net. It is

constantly being added to and improved collectively.

The Net is a grand intellectual and social commune in

the spirit of the collective nature present in the origins

of human society. Netizens working together continu-

ally expand the store of information worldwide. One

person called the Net an untapped resource because it

provides an alternative to the normal channels and

ways of doing things. The Net allows for the meeting

of minds to form and develop ideas. It brings people’s

thinking processes out of isolation and into the open.

Every user of the Net gains the role of being special

and useful. The fact that every user has his or her own

opinions and interests adds to the general body of

specialized knowledge on the Net. Each Netizen thus

becomes a special resource valuable to the Net. Each

user contributes to the whole intellectual and social

value and possibilities of the Net.

I. Licklider, the Visionary

The world of the Netizen was envisioned some

twenty-five years ago by J.C.R. Licklider and Robert

Page 2

Taylor in their article “The Computer as a Communi-

cation Device” (Science and Technology, April 1968).

Licklider brought to his leadership of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agen-

cy (ARPA) a vision of “the intergalactic computer net-

work.” Whenever he would speak of ARPA, he would

mention this vision. J.C.R. Licklider was a prophet of

the Net. In his article, Licklider establishes several

helpful principles which would make the computer

play a helpful role in human communication. These

principles were:

1) Communication is defined as an interactive creative

process.

2) Response times need to be short to make the “con-

versation” free and easy.

3) The larger network would form out of smaller re-

gional networks.

4) Communities would form out of affinity and com-

mon interests.

Licklider focused on the Net comprising a net-

work of networks. While other researchers of the time

focused on the sharing of computing resources,

Licklider kept an open mind and wrote:

…the collection of people, hardware,

and software — the multi-access com-

puter together with its local community

of users — will become a node in a

geographically distributed computer

network …. Through the network,

therefore, all the large computers can

communicate with one another. And

through them, all the members of the

super-community can communicate —

with other people, with programs, with

data, or with selected combinations of

those resources.

Lickliders understandings from his 1968 paper

have stood the test of time, and do represent what the

Net is today. His concept of the sharing of both com-

puting and human resources accurately describes to-

day’s Net. The networking of various human connec-

tions quickly forms, changes its goals, disbands, and

reforms into new collaborations. The fluidity of such

group dynamics leads to a quickening of the creation

of new ideas. Groups can form to discuss an idea,

focus in or broaden out and reform to fit the new ideas

that have resulted from the process.

The virtual space created on non-commercial

computer networks is accessible universally. This

space is accessible from the connections that exist;

whereas social networks in the physical world are con-

nected only by limited gateways. So the capability of

networking on computer nets overcomes limitations

inherent in non-computer social networks. This is im-

portant because it reduces the problems of population

growth. Population growth no longer means limited

resources. Rather, that very growth of population now

means an improvement of resources. Thus, growth of

population can be seen as a positive asset. This is a

new way of looking at people in our society. Every

new person can mean a new set of perspectives and

specialties to add to the wealth of knowledge of the

world. This new view of people could help improve

the view of the future. The old model looks down on

population growth and people as a strain on the envi-

ronment rather than the increase of intellectual contri-

butions these individuals can make. However, access

to the Net needs to be universal for the Net to fully

utilize the contribution each person can represent.

Once access is limited, the Net and those on the Net

lose the full possible advantages the Net can offer.

Lastly, the people on the Net need to be active in order

to bring about the best possible use of the Network.

Licklider foresaw that the Net allows for peo-

ple of common interests, who are otherwise strangers,

to communicate. Much of the magic of the Net is the

ability to make a contribution of your ideas, and then

be connected to utter strangers. He saw that people

would connect to others via this net in ways that had

been much harder in the past. Licklider observed as the

ARPANET spanned two continents. This physical con-

nection allowed for wider social collaborations to

form. This was the beginning of Computer Data net-

works facilitating connections amoung people around

the world.

My research on and about the Net has been and

continues to be very exciting for me. When I posted

my inquiries, I usually received the first reply within a

couple of hours. The feeling of receiving that very first

reply from a total stranger is always exhilarating! That

set of first replies from people reminds me of the

magic of E-Mail. It is nice that there can be reminders

of how exciting it all is — so that the value of this new

use of computers is never forgotten.

II. CRITICAL MASS

The Net has grown so much in the last 25

years, that a critical mass of people and interests has

been reached. This collection of individuals adds to the

interests and specialties of the entire community. Most

Page 3

people can now gain something from the Net, while at

the same time helping it out. A critical mass has de-

veloped on the net. Enough people exist that the whole

is now greater than any one individual and thus makes

the Net worthwhile to be part of. People are meshing

intellects and knowledge to form new ideas. Larry

Press made this clear by writing:

I now work on the Net at least two

hours per day. I’ve had an account

since around 1975, but it has only be-

come super important in the last couple

of years because a critical mass of

membership was reached. I no longer

work in LA, but in cyberspace.

Many inhabitants of the Net feel that only the

most technically inclined people use the Net. This is

not true, as many different kinds of people are now

connected to the Net. While the original users of the

Net were from exclusively technical and scientific

communities, many of them found it a valuable experi-

ence to explore the Net for more than just technical

reasons. The nets, in their early days, were only avail-

able in a few parts of the world. Now, however, people

of all ages, from most parts of the globe, and of many

professions, make up the Net. The original prototype

networks (e.g.: ARPANET in the USA, NPL in the

United Kingdom, CYCLADES in France and other

networks around the world) developed the necessary

physical infrastructure for a fertile social network to

develop. Einar Stefferud wrote of this social connec-

tion in an article:

The ARPANET has produced several

monumental results. It provided the

physical and electrical communications

backbone for development of the latent

social infrastructure we now call THE

INTERNET COMMUNITY. (Conne-

Xions, Oct. 1989, vol. 3 No. 10, p. 21)

Many different kinds of people comprise the

Net. The University Community sponsors access to a

broad range of people (students, professors, staff, pro-

fessor emeritus, and so on). Programmers, engineers

and researchers from many companies are connected.

A K–12 Net exists within the lower grades of educa-

tion which helps to invite young people to be a part of

our community. Special Bulletin Board software (for

example, Waffle) exists to connect Personal Computer

users to the Net. Various Unix bulletin board systems

exist to connect other users. It is impossible to tell

exactly who connects to public bulletin board systems,

as only an inexpensive computer (or terminal) and mo-

dem are required to connect. Many common bulletin

board systems (for example, fido board) have at least

e-mail and many also participate through a gateway to

Netnews. Prototype Community Network Systems are

forming around the world (e.g.: In Cleveland — the

Cleveland Freenet, in New Zealand — the Wellington

— Citynet, in California, the Santa Monica Public

Electronic Network, etc.) Access via these community

systems can be as easy as visiting the community li-

brary and membership is open to all who live in the

community.

In addition to the living body of resources this

diversity of Netizens represent, there is also a continu-

ally growing body of digitized data that forms a set of

resources. Whether it is Netizens digitizing great lit-

erature of the past (e.g.: the Gutenberg Project), or it is

people gathering otherwise obscure or non-mainstream

material (e.g.: Various Religions, unusual hobbies,

fringe and cult materials, and so on), or if it is Netizens

contributing new and original material (e.g.: the

Amateur Computerist Newsletter), the net follows in

the great tradition of other public bottom-up institu-

tions, such as the public library or the principle behind

public education. The Net shares with these institutions

that they serve the general populace. This data is just

part of the treasure. Often living Netizens provide

pointers to this digitized store of publicly available

information. Many of the network access tools have

been programmed with the principle of being available

to everyone. The best example is the method of con-

necting to file repositories via FTP (file transfer pro-

tocol) by logging in as an “anonymous” user. Most (if

not all) World Wide Web Sites, Wide Area Informa-

tion Systems (WAIS), and gopher sites are open for all

users of the Net. It is true that the current membership

of the Net Community is smaller than it will be, but the

net has reached a point of general usefulness no matter

who you are.

All of this evidence is exactly why there could

be problems if the Net comes under the control of

commercial entities. Once commercial interests gain

control, the Net will be much less powerful for the

ordinary person than it is currently. Commercial in-

terests vary from those of the common person. They

attempt to make a profit from any available means.

CompuServe is an example of one current commercial

network. A user of CompuServe pays for access by the

minute. If this scenario would be extended to the Net

of which I speak, the Netiquite of being helpful would

Page 4

have a price tag attached to it. If people had to pay by

the minute during the Net’s development, very few

would have been able to afford the network time

needed to be helpful to others.

The Net has only developed because of the

hard work and voluntary dedication of many people. It

has grown because the Net is under the control and

power of the people at a bottom-level, and because

these people have over the years made a point to make

it something worthwhile. People’s posts and contribu-

tions to the Net have been the developing forces.

III. Network as a New Democratic Force

For the people of the World, the Net provides

a powerful way of peaceful assembly. Peaceful assem-

bly allows for people to take control over their lives,

rather than that control being in the hands of others.

This power has to be honored and protected. Any

medium or tool that helps people to hold or gain power

is something that is special and has to be protected.

(See “The Computer as Democratizer,” Amateur Com-

puterist Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 5, Fall 1992.)

J.C.R. Licklider believed that access to the then

growing information network should be made ubiqui-

tous. He felt that the Nets value would depend on high

connectivity. In his article, “The Computer as a Com-

munication Device,” Licklider argues that the impact

upon society depends on how available the network is

to the society as a whole. He wrote:

For the society, the impact will be good

or bad depending mainly on the ques-

tion: Will ‘to be online be a privilege

or a right? If only a favored segment of

the population gets a chance to enjoy

the advantage of intelligence amplifica-

tion,’ the network may exaggerate the

discontinuity in the spectrum of intel-

lectual opportunity.

The Net has made a valuable impact on human

society. I have heard from many people how their lives

have been substantially improved via their connection

to the Net. This enhancement of people’s lives pro-

vides the incentive needed for providing access to all

in society. Society will improve if net-access is made

available to people as a whole. Only if access is un-

iversal will the Net itself truly advance. The ubiquitous

connection is necessary for the Net to encompass all

possible resources. One Net visionary responded to my

research by calling for universal access. Steve Welch

wrote:

If we can get to the point where anyone

who gets out of high school alive has

used computers to communicate on the

Net or a reasonable facsimile or succes-

sor to it, then we as a society will bene-

fit in ways not currently understand-

able. When access to information is as

ubiquitous as access to the phone sys-

tem, all hell will break loose. Bet on it.

Steve is right, “all hell will break loose” in the

most positive of ways imaginable. The philosophers

Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and all other

fighters for democracy would have been proud.

Similar to past communication advances, such

as the printing-press, mail, and the telephone, the Glo-

bal Computer Communications Network has already

changed our lives. Licklider predicted that the Net

would fundamentally change the way people live and

work. It is important to try to understand this impact,

to help further this advance.

* “The Net and the Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People’s

Lives,” is available as Chapter One of the netbook “Netizens: An

Anthology” at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. It was available

online as Chapter Seven of the netbook “The Netizens and the

Wonderful World of the Net: An Anthology” at

http://www.col

umbia.edu/~hauben/netbook_contents.html but the links at that

site are no longer accessible. It first appeared as three posts on

Usenet on July 6, 1993. The original post has been accessible at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=C9qE61.KFB%40cs

.columbia.edu&output=gplain.

[Editor’s Note: An early version of the following article appeared

online in Spring 1993. A later version appears as Chapter 5 of

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the

IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 69-75.]

The Vision of Interactive

Computing and the Future

by Michael Hauben

Where has the Information Superhighway

come from? This is a very important question which

the Clinton and Gore Administration seem to be ig-

noring. However, understanding this history is a cruc-

ial step toward building the network of the future. It is

my goal in this presentation to uncover the vision

behind the Internet, Usenet and other associated Phys-

Page 5

ical and Logical networks.

While the nets are basically young (the ARPA-

NET started 25 years before 1994), this 25 year growth

is substantial. The ARPANET was the Defense De-

partment’s Advanced Research Projects Agency’s

experimental network connecting the mainframes of

universities and other Department of Defense (DoD)

contractors. The ARPANET initially started out as a

testbed of computer networking, communications pro-

tocols, and information/computer and data sharing.

However, what it developed into was something of a

completely different nature. The most wide use of the

ARPANET was for human-to-human communication

using electronic mail (e-mail) and discussion lists

(popular lists were the wine-tasters and sci-fi lovers

lists). The human communications aspect of the

ARPANET continues to be today’s most popular usage

of the Net by a vast variety of people through e-mail,

Usenet News discussion groups, Mailing Lists, Internet

Relay Chat (IRC), and so on. However, the ARPANET

was the product of previous research itself.

Before the 1960s, computers operated in batch

mode. This meant that a user had to provide a program

on punch cards to the local computer center. Often, a

programmer had to wait over a day in order to see the

results from his or her input. In addition, if there were

any mistakes in the creation of the punched cards, the

stack or individual card had to be re-punched and re-

submitted, which would take another day. This does

not account for bugs in the code, which someone only

finds out after attempting to compile the code. This

was a very inefficient way of utilizing the power of the

computer from the viewpoint of a human, in addition

to discouraging those unfamiliar with computers. This

led to different people thinking of ways to alter the

interface between people and computers. The idea of

time-sharing developed among some of the computer

research communities. Time-sharing amounts to mult-

iple people utilizing the computer (then mainframes)

simultaneously. Time-sharing operated by giving the

impression that the user is the only one on the com-

puter. This is executed by having the computer divvy

out slices of CPU time to all the users in a sequential

manner.

Research in time-sharing was happening

around the country at different research centers in

early 1960s. Some examples were CTSS (Computer

Time-Sharing System) at MIT, DTSS (Dartmouth

Time-Sharing System) at Dartmouth, a system at BBN,

and so on. J.C.R. Licklider, the founding director of

ARPA’s Information Processing Techniques Office

(IPTO), thought of time-sharing as Interactive Com-

puting. Interactive computing meant the user had a

way to communicate and respond to the computer’s

responses in a way that Batch Processing did not

allow.

Both Robert Taylor and Larry Roberts, future

successors of Licklider as director of IPTO, pinpoint

Licklider as the originator of the vision which set

ARPA’s priorities and goals and basically drove

ARPA to help develop the concept of networking

computers.

In an interview conducted by the Charles Bab-

bage Institute, Roberts said:

What I concluded was that we had to

do something about communications,

and that really, the idea of the galactic

network that Lick talked about, proba-

bly more than anybody, was something

that we had to start seriously thinking

about. So in a way, networking grew

out of Lick’s talking about that, al-

though Lick himself could not make

anything happen because it was too

early when he talked about it. But he

did convince me it was important. (CBI

Oral Interview, Roberts, p. 7)

Taylor also pointed out the importance of

Licklider’s vision for future network development in

a CBI conducted interview:

I don’t think … anyone who’s been in

that DARPA position since [Licklider]

has had the vision that Licklider had.

His being at that place at that time is a

testament to the tenuousness of it all. It

was really a fortunate circumstance. I

think most of the significant advances

in computer technology, especially in

the systems part of computer science

over the years … were simply extrapo-

lations of Licklider’s vision. They were

not really new visions of their own. So

he’s really the father of it all. (CBI Oral

Interview, Taylor, p. 8)

Crucial to the definition of today’s networks

were the thoughts awakened in the minds of those

researchers interested in time-sharing. These research-

ers began to think about social issues related to time-

sharing. One such topic was the formation of commu-

nities of the people who used the time-sharing systems.

Page 6

Fernando Corbato and Robert Fano wrote:

The time-sharing computer system can

unite a group of investigators in a co-

operative search for the solution to a

common problem, or it can serve as a

community pool of knowledge and

skill on which anyone can draw accord-

ing to his needs. Projecting the concept

on a large scale, one can conceive of

such a facility as an extraordinarily

powerful library serving an entire com-

munity — in short, an intellectual pub-

lic utility. (“Time-sharing on Comput-

ers” in Information, p. 76)

Robert Taylor spoke about some of the unex-

pected circumstances that time-sharing made possible:

They were just talking about a network

where they could have a compatibility

across these systems, and at least do

some load sharing, and some program

sharing, data sharing — that sort of

thing. Whereas, the thing that struck

me about the time-sharing experience

was that before there was a time-shar-

ing system, let’s say at MIT, then there

were a lot of individual people who

didn’t know each other who were inter-

ested in computing in one way or an-

other, and who were doing whatever

they could, however they could. As

soon as the time-sharing system be-

came usable, these people began to

know one another, share a lot of infor-

mation, and ask of one another, “How

do I use this? Where do I find that?” It

was really phenomenal to see this com-

puter become a medium that stimulated

the formation of a human community.

… and so, here ARPA had a number of

sites by this time, each of which had its

own sense of community and was digi-

tally isolated from the other one. I saw

a phrase in the Licklider memo. The

phrase was in a totally different context

— something that he referred to as an

“intergalactic network.” I asked him

about this later … recently, in fact I

said, “Did you have a networking of

the ARPANET sort in mind when you

used that phrase?” He said, “No, I was

thinking about a single time-sharing

system that was intergalactic….” (CBI

Oral Interview, Taylor, p. 24.)

As Taylor recounts, the users of the time-shar-

ing systems would, usually unexpectedly, form a new

community. People now were connected to others who

were interested in these new computing systems.

Licklider was one of the first users of the new

time-sharing systems and took the time to play around

with them. Because of this, Fernando Corbato called

Licklider a visionary, and not an implementor. Exam-

ining the uses of this new way of communicating with

the computer enabled Licklider to think about the

future possibilities. This was helpful because Licklider

helped establish the priorities and direction that

ARPA’s IPTO was attempting to approach with their

research monies with his vision. Many of the Inter-

viewees in the CBI Interviews said that ARPA’s

monies were given in those days to help seed research

which would be helpful to the general society in

general, and only secondary to the military.

The visions driving ARPA led to inspire bright

researchers working on computer related topics.

Roberts even goes as far to say that Licklider’s work

(and that of the IPTO directors after him) educated the

people who were to become the leaders in the com-

puter industry in general. Roberts relates Licklider’s

vision and how future IPTO directors continued

Licklider’s legacy:

Well, I think that the one influence is

… the production of people in the com-

puter field that are trained, and knowl-

edgeable, and capable, and that forms

the basis for the progress the United

States has made in the computer field.

That production of people started with

Lick, when he started the IPTO pro-

gram and started the big university

programs. It was really due to Lick, in

large part, because I think it was that

early set of activities that I continued

with that produced the most people

with the big university contracts. That

produced a base for them to expand

their whole department and produced

excitement in the university. (CBI Oral

Interview, Roberts, p. 29)

The influence on academia led to a profound

effect on the future of the computer industry. Roberts

continues:

Page 7

So it was clear that that was a big im-

pact on the universities and therefore,

in the industry. You can almost track

all those people and see what effect

that has had. The people from those

projects are in large part the leaders

throughout the industry. (Ibid., p. 30)

Licklider’s “Intergalactic Network” was a time-

sharing utility which would serve the entire galaxy.

This early vision of time-sharing spawned the idea of

interconnecting different time-sharing systems by net-

working them together. This network would allow

those on geographic separate time-sharing systems to

share data, programs, their research, and later other

ideas and anything that could be typed out. Licklider

and Taylor collaborated on an article titled “The Com-

puter as a Communications Device” which foresaw

today’s Net. They wrote:

We have seen the beginnings of com-

munication through a computer —

communication among people at con-

soles located in the same room or on

the same university campus or even at

distantly separated laboratories of the

same research and development organi-

zation. This kind of communication —

through a single multi-access computer

with the aid of telephone lines — is be-

ginning to foster cooperation and pro-

mote coherence more effectively than

do present arrangements for sharing

computer programs by exchanging

magnetic tape by messenger or mail.

(Licklider & Taylor, p. 28)

Later in the article, they point out that the

interconnection of computers leads to a much broader

class of connections than might have been expected. A

new community is described when they write:

The collection of people, hardware, and

software — the multi-access computer

together with its local community of

users — will become a node in a geo-

graphically distributed computer net-

work. Let us assume for a moment that

such a network has been formed ….

Through the network of message pro-

cessors, therefore, all the large comput-

ers can communicate with one another.

And through them, all the members of

the super-community can communicate

— with other people, with programs,

with data, or with a selected combina-

tion of those resources. (IBID., p. 32)

Licklider and Taylor exhibit their interest in

more than just hardware and software when they con-

tinue to think about the new social dynamics the

connections of disperse computers and people will

create. The authors continue:

[These communities] will be communi-

ties not of common location, but of

common interest. In each field, the

overall community of interest will be

large enough to support a comprehen-

sive system of field-oriented programs

and data. (IBID., p. 38)

In exploring this community of common af-

finity, the pair looks for the possible positive reasons

to connect to and be a part of these new computer

facilitated communities:

First, life will be happier for the online

individual because the people with

whom one interacts most strongly will

be selected more by commonality of

interests and goals than by accidents of

proximity. Second, communication will

be more effective and productive, and

therefore more enjoyable. Third, much

communication and interaction will be

with programs and programming mod-

els, which will be (a) highly respon-

sive, (b) supplementary to one’s own

capabilities, rather than competitive,

and (c) capable of representing pro-

gressively more complex ideas without

necessarily displaying all the levels of

their structure at the same time — and

which will therefore be both challeng-

ing and rewarding. And, fourth, there

will be plenty of opportunity for every-

one (who can afford a console) to find

his calling, for the whole world of in-

formation, with all its fields and dis-

ciplines, will be open to him, with pro-

grams ready to guide him or to help

him explore. (IBID., p. 40)

Licklider and Taylor conclude their article on

a prophetic question. The advantages that computer

networks make possible will only happen if these

advantages are available to all who want to make use

of them. The question is posed as follows:

Page 8

For the society, the impact will be good

or bad depending mainly on the ques-

tion: Will ‘to be on line’ be a privilege

or a right? If only a favored segment of

the population gets a chance to enjoy

the advantage of ‘intelligence amplifi-

cation,’ the network may exaggerate

the discontinuity in the spectrum of

intellectual opportunity. (IBID., p. 40)

The question which is raised is one of access.

The authors try to point out that the positive effects of

computer networking would only come about if the

ability to use the networks is made easy and available.

Lastly, they hold that access will probably be made

available because of the global benefits which they

predict would ensue. They end by writing:

…if the network idea should prove to

do for education what a few have envi-

sioned in hope, if not in concrete de-

tailed plan, and if all minds should

prove to be responsive, surely the boon

to humankind would be beyond mea-

sure. (IBID., p. 40)

Licklider and Taylor raise an important point of

saying access should be made available to all who

want to use the computer networks. The relevance to

today is that it is important to ask if the National Infor-

mation Infrastructure is being designed with the prin-

ciple of making equality of access as important. As I

have identified in this presentation, there was a vision

of the interconnection and interaction of extremely

diverse communities guiding the creation of the ori-

ginal ARPANET. In the design of the expansion of the

Network to our society as a whole, it is important to

keep the original vision in mind to consider if the

vision was correct, or if it was just important in the

initial development of networking technologies and

techniques. However, very little emphasis has been

placed on either the study of Licklider’s vision or the

role and advantages the Nets have played up to this

point. In addition, the public has not been a part of the

planning for the new initiatives which the federal gov-

ernment is currently planning. This is a plea to you to

demand more of a part in the development of the future

of the Net.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Corbato, Fernado and Robert Fano. “Time-sharing on Computers”

in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 215 No. 3 (Sep-

tember 1966), p. 128.

Corbato, Fernado. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.*

Fano, Robert. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Kemeny, John. Man and the Computer Charles Scribner’s Sons

NY, 1972.

Licklider, J.C.R. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Licklider, J.C.R. and Robert Taylor. “The Computer as a Commu-

nication Device,” in Science and Technology April,

1968, p. 40.

Roberts, Lawrence. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

Taylor, Robert. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.

* All Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interviews can be accessed

at:

https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/cbi-oral-histories.

[Editor’s Note: The following is a post made on Usenet on April

3, 1994. It is archived online in the newsgroup comp.society at:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.society/c/4EIkUjlukM8/m/Bj

ah7MPuFGcJ]

The Computer as a

Communications Device

by Michael Hauben

I have the following questions in mind as I am

writing this post:

What is the advancement that the com-

puter as a communications device has

introduced to society as a whole and

computer science?

What new capability or role or utility

can the computer (facilitating commu-

nications) help fulfill?

I feel that by tracing the evolution of the com-

puter as a communications device should prove helpful

to answering this question. As I point out later in the

post, there have been people who have seriously

thought about this during the development of time-

sharing and the computer networks. There have been

some, but compared to computer science as a whole,

this field has not been given the attention it deserves.

I am interested in the capabilities that the com-

puter as a machine has facilitating communications. I

am focusing on communications as opposed to compu-

tation. In addition I am focusing on Human Communi-

cation rather than Man — Machine Communication.

Following are some thoughts that I would be

interested in any discussion about or comments on:

A) Often the computer is painted as a multi-function

Page 9

machine. However, this multi-fuctionality of-

ten rests on the ability of the computer as cap-

able of making arithmetic computations at a

high rate.

B) Material has been written by various people about

the computer as a communications device.

However, only individuals or a small commu-

nity seem to concentrate on it. As such, it does

not seem to have been a topic which has ever

been expanded beyond a few.

C) Academic institutions seem to avoid concentrating

on the topic, and the majority of the computer

industry only delves into the technical possibil-

ities in order to make a profit. Both fields seem

happy to focus on the technical applications,

without sitting down to study and think about

the social implications.

D) People have seriously written about the use of

computers to facilitate human communications

in the manner I am thinking about it. Some

have been from those who were involved with

developing and thinking about Time-sharing in

the 1950s and 60s. (John McCarthy, Christo-

pher Strachey, R. M. Fano, F. J. Corbato, John

Kenemy, among others.) Others have been by

people who were involved with the experimen-

tation and developing of interconnecting com-

puters using the Department of Defense’s

ARPANET, and other computer networking

pioneers. (J.C.R. Licklider, Larry Roberts, Paul

Baran, among others.) These people have

written about the ability of the computer to

help facilitate human communication. How-

ever, these articles seem to be non-connected.

There has not been a continual study of the

effects that computer communication has had

on society. This is a topic which deserves study

to better understand what is happening in our

society today, and for the future.

E) The work on computer-mediated communication

(CMC) seems to have little to do with what I

find revolutionary about this medium. Much of

the CMC literature I have looked at seem to be

specific case studies of centralized isolated

systems. The Net, as such, is worlds different

from these case studies. In addition, these

studies often seem to look very narrowly at

technologies which are less used compared to

the Usenet/Netnews and Mailing Lists which

go around the World.

F) The studies which focus on the social and political

significance and effect of computer facilitated

communication on social relations and the

rearrangement of political power in our society

are what I am interested in.

Many of us OnLine (but not all!) today seem to

be aware of the role the computer helps in human

communication. However, the greater mass of people

outside of our community are only just being intro-

duced to the possibilities. And this includes others who

use computers. Thus, I am interested in hearing peo-

ple’s thoughts and observations on how and why

computers help to facilitate communication between

people.

Lastly, here are a few interesting quotes getting

at what I am talking about and why I feel it is impor-

tant to study the computer as a communications

device:

People have a fundamental need to

communicate, and Usenet News aptly

fills the bill.

(See, e.g., Gregory G. Woodbury’s “Net Cultural As-

sumptions.”)

I think/feel that computer communica-

tions (done between humans via com-

puters) lie somewhere between written

and verbal communications in style and

flavor. There is an ambience of infor-

mality and stream-of-consciousness

style that pervades it, but coupled with

ideas that are well thought out (usually)

and deeper in insight than average ver-

bal communications. Does this make

any sense to anyone ‘sides myself’?

(From the Human-Nets mailing list, circa from May

15, 1981 by FFM@MIT–MC with the subject “English

Murdering & flame about human telecommunica-

tions.”)

— Our emphasis on people is deliber-

ate. A communications engineer thinks

of communicating as transferring infor-

mation from one point to another in

codes and signals.

But to communicate is more than to

send and to receive. Do two tape re-

corders communicate when they play

to each other and record from each

other? Not really — not in our sense.

We believe that communicators have to

do something non-trivial with the infor-

Page 10

mation they send and receive. And to

interact with the richness of living

information — not merely in the pas-

sive way that we have become accus-

tomed to using books and libraries, but

as active participants in an ongoing

process, bringing something to it

through our interaction with it, and not

simply receiving from it by our connec-

tion to it … . We want to emphasize

something beyond its one-way transfer:

the increasing significance of the joint-

ly constructive, the mutually reinforc-

ing aspect of communication — the

part that transcends ‘now we both

know a fact that only one of us knew

before.’ When minds interact, new

ideas emerge. We want to talk about

the creative aspect of communication.

(From “The Computer as a Communication Device”

by J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, see p. 21 at

https://internetat50.com/references/Licklider

_Taylor_The-Computer-As-A-Communications-Dev

ice.pdf.)

[Editor’s Note: The following article first appeared as three posts

on Usenet on July 6, 1993, accessible at:

http://www.ais.org

/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Works/Posts/1993_Com

mon_Sense_Usenet_Posts/. By January 12, 1994, it appeared in

an online book as Chapter 7 of “The Netizens and the Wonderful

World of the Net: An Anthology.” In October 1995, the version

below was taken to Japan by Michael Hauben as Chapter 1 of the

draft version of what became Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben

published in 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society Press.]

Chapter 1

The Net and Netizens:

The Impact the Net Has On People’s

Lives

by Michael Hauben

PREFACE

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Neti-

zen (a Net Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the

world thanks to the global connectivity that the Net

makes possible. You consider everyone as your com-

patriot. You physically live in one country, but you are

in contact with much of the world via the global com-

puter network. Virtually you live next door to every

other single Netizen in the world. Geographical sep-

aration is replaced by existence in the same virtual

space.

The situation I describe is only a prediction of

the future, but a large part of the necessary infrastruc-

ture currently exists. The Net — or the Internet, BIT-

NET, FIDOnet, other physical networks, Usenet,

VMSnet, and other logical networks and so on — has

rapidly grown to cover all the developed countries in

the world.

Everyday more computers attach to the

existing networks and every new computer adds to the

user base — at least twenty-seven million people are

interconnected today.

We are seeing a revitalization of society. The

frameworks are being redesigned from the bottom up.

A new, more democratic world is becoming possible.

As one user observed, the Net has “measurably in-

creased the quality of … life.” The Net seems to open

a new lease on life for people. Social connections

which never before were possible, or relatively hard to

achieve, are now facilitated by the Net. Geography and

time are no longer boundaries. Social limitations and

conventions no longer prevent potential friendships or

partnerships. In this manner, Netizens are meeting

other Netizens from far-away and close by that they

might never have met without the Net.

A new world of connections between people —

either privately from individual to individual or pub-

licly from individuals to the collective mass of many

on the Net is possible. The old model of distribution of

information from the central Network Broadcasting

Company is being questioned and challenged. The top-

down model of information being distributed by a few

for mass-consumption is no longer the only news.

Netnews brings the power of the reporter to the

Netizen. People now have the ability to broadcast their

observations or questions around the world and have

other people respond. The computer networks form a

new grassroots connection that allows the excluded

sections of society to have a voice. This new medium

is unprecedented. Previous grassroots media have

existed for much smaller-sized selections of people.

The model of the Net proves the old way does not have

to be the only way of networking. The Net extends the

idea of networking — of making connections with

strangers that prove to be advantageous to one or both

parties.

The complete connection of the body of citi-

zens of the world that the Net makes possible does not

Page 11

yet exist, and it will be a struggle to make access to the

Net open and available to all. However, in the future,

we might be seeing the possible expansion of what it

means to be a social animal. Practically every single

individual on the Net today is available to every other

person on the Net. International connection coexists on

the same level with local connection. Also, the com-

puter networks allow a more advanced connection be-

tween the people who are communicating. With com-

puter communication systems, information or thoughts

are connected to people’s names and electronic-mail

addresses. On the Net, one can connect to others who

have similar interests or whose thought processes they

enjoy.

Netizens make it a point to be helpful and

friendly — if they feel it to be worthwhile. Many Net-

izens feel they have an obligation to be helpful and

answer queries and followup on discussions to put

their opinion into the pot of opinions. Over a period of

time the voluntary contributions to the Net have built

it into a useful connection to other people around the

world. When I posted the question, “Is the Net a

Source of Social/Economic Wealth?” many people

responded. Several corrected my calling the net a

source of accurate information. They pointed out that

it was also a source of opinions. However, the reader

can train himself to figure out the accurate information

from the breadth of opinions. Presented here is an ex-

ample of the broadness of views and opinion which I

was able to gather from my research on the Net. The

Net can be a helpful medium to understand the world.

Only by seeing all points of view can anyone attempt

to figure out his or her position on a topic.

Net society differs from off line society by

welcoming intellectual activity. People are encouraged

to have things on their mind and to present those ideas

to the Net. People are allowed to be intellectually in-

teresting and interested. This intellectual activity forms

a major part of the online information that is carried by

the various computer networks. Netizens can interact

with other people to help add to or alter that informa-

tion. Brainstorming between varieties of people

produces robust thinking. Information is no longer a

fixed commodity or resource on the Nets. It is con-

stantly being added to and improved collectively. The

Net is a grand intellectual and social commune in the

spirit of the collective nature present in the origins of

human society. Netizens working together continually

expand the store of information worldwide. One per-

son called the Net an untapped resource because it

provides an alternative to the normal channels and

ways of doing things. The Net allows for the meeting

of minds to form and develop ideas. It brings people’s

thinking processes out of isolation and into the open.

Every user of the Net gains the role of being special

and useful. The fact that every user has his or her own

opinions and interests adds to the general body of

specialized knowledge on the Net. Each Netizen thus

becomes a special resource valuable to the Net. Each

user contributes to the whole intellectual and social

value and possibilities of the Net.

INTRODUCTION

The world of the Netizen was envisioned more

than twenty-five years ago by J.C.R. Licklider. Lick

brought to his leadership of the Department of De-

fense’s ARPA Information Processing Techniques

Office (IPTO) a vision of “the intergalactic computer

network.” Whenever he would speak from ARPA, he

would mention this vision. J.C.R. Licklider was a

prophet of the Net. In the paper, “The Computer as a

Communication Device,” which Licklider wrote with

Robert Taylor, they established several principles from

their observations of how the computer would play a

helpful role in human communication.

They clarified

their definition of communication as a creative pro-

cess, differentiating between communication and the

sending and receiving of information. When two tape

recorders send or receive information to each other that

is not communication. They wrote:

We believe that communicators have to

do something non-trivial with the infor-

mation they send and receive. And to

interact with the richness of living in-

formation — not merely in the passive

way that we have become accustomed

to using books and libraries, but as

active participants in an ongoing pro-

cess, bringing something to it through

our interaction with it, and not simply

receiving from it by our connection to

it. We want to emphasize something

beyond its one-way transfer: the in-

creasing significance of the jointly

constructive, the mutually reinforcing

aspect of communication — the part

that transcends ‘now we both know a

fact that only one of us knew before.’

When minds interact, new ideas e-

merge. We want to talk about the cre-

Page 12

ative aspect of communication.

Licklider and Taylor defined four principles for

computers to make a contribution toward human com-

munication. They are:

1) Communication is defined as an

interactive creative process.

2) Response times need to be short to

make the “conversation” free and easy.

3) Larger networks would form out of

smaller regional networks.

4) Communities would form out of

affinity and common interests.

Licklider and Taylor’s understandings from

their 1968 paper have stood the test of time, and do

represent the Net today. In a later paper, Licklider co-

wrote with Albert Vezza, “Applications of Information

Networks,”

they explore the possible business appli-

cations of information networks. Licklider and Vezza’s

survey of business applications in 1978 come short of

the possibilities Licklider and Taylor outlined in their

1968 paper, and represents but a tiny fraction of the

resources the Net currently embodies.

In the 1968 paper, Licklider and Taylor focused

on the Net being comprised a network of networks.

While other researchers of the time focused on the

sharing of computing resources, Licklider and Taylor

kept an open mind and wrote:

The collection of people, hardware, and

software — the multi-access computer

together with its local community of

users — will become a node in a geo-

graphically distributed computer net-

work. Let us assume for a moment that

such a network has been formed.

Through the network of message pro-

cessors, therefore, all the large comput-

ers can communicate with one another.

And through them, all the members of

the super community can communicate

— with other people, with programs,

with data, or with selected combina-

tions of those resources.

Their concept of the sharing of both computing

and human resources together matches the modern

Net. The networking of various human connections

quickly forms, changes its goals, disbands, and reforms

into new collaborations. The fluidity of such group

dynamics leads to a quickening of the creation of new

ideas. Groups can form to discuss an idea, focus in or

broaden out and reform to fit the new ideas that have

been worked out.

Netnews, IRC, mailing lists and mud/mush/

moo/m** (various of the available discussion tools on

the Net) are extremely dynamic. Most can be formed

immediately for either short or long-term use. As inter-

ests or events form, discussion groups can be created.

(e.g., The mailing list ‘9NOV89–L’ about Germany

after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November, 1989,

and about German unification.)

The virtual space created on noncommercial

computer networks is accessible universally. The con-

tent on commercial networks, like CompuServe or

America OnLine, is only accessible by those who pay

to belong to that particular network. The space on non-

commercial networks is accessible from the connec-

tions that exist, whereas social networks in the physi-

cal world generally are connected by limited gateways.

So the capability of networking in computer nets over-

comes limitations inherent in non-computer social net-

works. This is important because it reduces the prob-

lems of population growth. Population growth need not

mean limited resources any more — rather that very

growth of population now means an improvement of

resources. Thus, growth of population can be seen as

a positive asset. This is a new way of looking at people

in our society. Every new person can mean a new set

of perspectives and specialties to add to the wealth of

knowledge of the world. This new view of people

could help improve the view of the future. The old

model looks down on population growth and people as

a strain on the environment rather than the increase of

intellectual contribution these individuals can make.

However, access to the Net needs to be universal for

the Net to fully utilize the contribution each person can

represent. As long as access is limited — the Net and

those on the Net, lose the full advantages of the Net

can offer. Lastly, the people on the Net need to be

active in order to bring about the best possible use of

the Net.

Licklider foresaw that the Net allows for peo-

ple of common interests, who are otherwise strangers,

to communicate. Much of the magic of the Net is the

ability to make a contribution of your ideas, and then

be connected to utter strangers. He saw that people

would connect to others via this Net in ways that had

been much harder in the past. Licklider observed as the

ARPANET spanned two continents. This physical con-

nection allowed for wider social collaborations to

form. This was the beginning of computer data net-

works facilitating connections of people around the

Page 13

world.

My research on and about the Net was very

exciting for me. When posting inquiries, I usually re-

ceived the first reply within a couple of hours. The

feeling of receiving that very first reply from a total

stranger is always exhilerating! That set of first replies

from people reminds me of the magic of e-Mail. It is

nice that there can be reminders of how exciting this

new form of communication really is — so that the

value of this new use of computers is never forgotten.

CRITICAL MASS

The Net has grown so much since its birth in

the 1960s that a critical mass of people and interests

has been reached. This collection of individuals adds

to the interests and specialties of the whole commu-

nity. Most people can now gain something from the

Net, while at the same time helping it out. There are

enough people online now that anyone coming online

will find something of interest. People are meshing

intellects and knowledge to form new ideas. Larry

Press made this clear by writing:

I now work on the Net at least two

hours per day. I’ve had an account

since around 1975, but it has only be-

come super important in the last couple

of years because a critical mass of

membership was reached. I no longer

work in LA, but in cyberspace.

While the original users of the Net were from

exclusively technical and scientific communities,

many of them found it a valuable experience to explore

the Net for more than just technical reasons. Today,

many different kinds of people are connected to the

Net. The original users of the Net (then several test-

beds of network research) were from only a few parts

of the world. Now people of all ages, from most parts

of the globe, and of many professions, make up the

Net. The original prototype networks (e.g., ARPANET

in the USA, the network of the National Physical

Laboratory in the United Kingdom, CYCLADES in

France and other networks around the world) devel-

oped the necessary physical infrastructure for a fertile

social network to develop. Einar Stefferud wrote of

this social connection in an article:

The ARPANET has produced several

monumental results. First, it provided

the physical and electrical communica-

tions backbone for development of the

latent social infrastructure we now call

‘THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.’

Many different kinds of people comprise the

Net. The university community sponsors access for a

broad range of people (i.e., students, professors, staff,

professor emeritus, etc.). Many businesses are also

connected. A ‘K–12 Net’ exists which invites younger

people to be a part of the online community. Special

bulletin board software exists to connect personal

computer users to the Net. Various Unix bulletin board

systems exist to connect other users. It is virtually

impossible to tell what kinds of people connect to

public bulletin board systems, as only a computer (or

terminal) and modem are the prerequisites to connect.

Many if not all Fidonet BBSs (a very common BBS

type) have at least e-mail and many also participate

through a gateway to Netnews. Prototype community

network systems are forming around the world (e.g.,

Cleveland Free-Net, Wellington Citynet, Santa Monica

Public Electronic Network (PEN), Berkeley Commu-

nity Memory Project, Hawaii FYI, National Capitol

Free-Net and others in Canada, etc.). Access via these

community systems can be as easy as visiting the com-

munity library and membership is open to all who live

in the community.

In addition to the living body of resources this

diversity of Netizens represents, there is also a contin-

ual growing body of digitized data that forms another

body of resources. Whether it is Netizens digitizing

great literature of the past (e.g., the Gutenberg Project,

Project Bartleby), or it is people gathering otherwise

obscure or non-mainstream material (e.g., various re-

ligions, unusual hobbies, gay lifestyle, fringe), or if it

is Netizens contributing new and original material, the

Net follows in the great tradition of other public

institutions, such as the public library or the principle

behind public education. The Net shares with these

institutions that they serve the general populace. This

data is just part of the treasure. Often living Netizens

provide pointers to this digitized store of publicly

available information. Many of the network access

tools have been created with the principle of being

available to everyone. The best example is the method

of connecting to file repositories via FTP (file transfer

protocol) by logging in as an ‘anonymous’ user. Most,

if not all, World Wide Web Sites, Wide Area Informa-

tion Systems (WAIS), and gopher sites are open for all

users of the Net. It is true that the Net Community is

smaller than it will be, but the Net has reached a point

of general usefulness no matter who you are.

All of this evidence is exactly why it is a

Page 14

problem for the Net to come under the control of com-

mercial entities. Once commercial interests gain con-

trol, the Net will be much less powerful for the ordi-

nary person than it is currently. Commercial interests

vary from those of the common person. They attempt

to make a profit from any available means. Comp-

uServe is an example of one current commercial

network. A user of CompuServe pays for access by the

hour. If this scenario would be extended to the Net of

which I speak, the Netiquette of being helpful would

have a price tag attached to it. If people had to pay by

the minute during the Net’s development, very few

would have been able to afford the network time

needed to be helpful to others.

The Net has only developed because of the

hard work and voluntary dedication of many people. It

has grown because the Net is in the control and power

of the people at the grassroots level, and because these

people developed it. People’s posts and contributions

to the Net have been the developing forces.

GRASSROOTS

The Net brings people together. People put into

connection with other people can be powerful. There

is power in numbers. The Net allows an individual to

realize his power. The Net, uncontrolled by commer-

cial entities, becomes the gathering, discussion and

planning center for many people.

The combined efforts of people interested in

communication have led to the development and ex-

pansion of the global communications system. What’s

on the Net? Well — Usenet, Free-Net, e-mail, library

catalogs, ftp sites, free software, electronic newsletters

and journals, Multi-User Domain/Dungeon (mud)/

mush/moo, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), the multimedia

world wide web (WWW) and many kinds of data

banks. Different servers, like WWW, WAIS, and go-

phers, attempt to order and make utilizing the vast

varieties and widespread information easier. There

exist both public and private services and sources of

information. The public and free services often come

about through the voluntary efforts of one or a few

people. These technologies allow a person to help

make the world a better place by making his or her

unique contribution available to the rest of the world.

People who have been overlooked or have felt unable

to contribute to the world now can. Also, these net-

works allow much more open and public interaction

over a much larger body of people than available be-

fore. The common people have a unique voice —

which is now being aired in a new way.

The emphasis is that this new machine intro-

duces every single person as someone special and in

possession of a useful resource.

NETIZEN COMMENTS ON

GRASSROOTS

Brian May:

Simple — by access to a vast amount

of information and an enormous num-

ber of brains!

Simon Raboczi:

For a geographically sparse group as it

is, MU* allows people to get to know

one another, the relevant newsgroup

gives a sense that there’s a community

out there and things are happening, and

an associated ftp site allows art and

writing to be distributed.

Brent Edwards:

In summary, nets have helped enor-

mously in the dissemination of infor-

mation from people knowledgeable in

certain areas, which would be difficult

to obtain otherwise.

Rosemary Warren:

I get to communicate rapidly and

cheaply with zillions of people around

the world.

The following examples help to show how this

is possible.

People are normally unprotected from the profit

desires of large companies. Steven Alexander from

California was using the Net to try to prevent over-

charging at gas stations. This is an example of the

power of connecting people to uphold what is fair and

in the best interest of the common person in this

society.

From Steven Alexander:

I have started compiling and distribut-

ing (on the newsgroup ca.driving) a list

of gas prices at particular stations in

California to which many people will

contribute and keep up to date, and

which, I hope, will allow consumers to

counteract what many of us suspect is

the collusive (or in any case, price-

gouging) behavior of the oil compa-

nies.

A user from Germany also reported using the

Page 15

Net to muckrake. He writes:

A company said they were a [nonprofit

organization]. Someone looked them

up in the [nonprofit] Register, and they

did not exist there. Someone else said

that he had contact with the person who

sent the letter, only under another com-

pany-name, and that he simply ignored

this person since he looked like a swin-

dler. So they are swindlers, and people

from the Net proved it to us, we then of

course did not engage with them at all.

The Net has proven its importance in other

contemporary critical situations. As the only available

line of communications with the rest of the world, the

Net helped defeat the attempted coup in the ex-Soviet

Union in 1990. The members of the coup either did not

know about or understand the role the Russian REL-

COM network could play or the connections proved

resilient enough for information about the coup to be

communicated inside and out of the country in time to

inform the world and encourage resistance to the

coup.

The Net has also proven its value by providing

an important medium for students. Students participat-

ing in the Chinese Pro-Democracy movement have

kept in touch with others around the world via their

fragile connection to the Net. The Net provided an

easy way of evading government censors to get news

around the world about events in China and to receive

back encouraging feedback. Such feedback is vital

support to keep the fight on when it seems impossible

or wrong to do so. In a similar way, students in France

used the French Minitel system to organize a success-

ful fight against plans by the French government to

restrict admission to government subsidized universi-

ties.

The information flow on the Net is controlled

by those who use the Net. People actively provide the

information that they personally and other people

want. There is a much more active form of participa-

tion than what is provided for by other forms of mass

media. Television, radio, magazines are all driven by

those who own and determine who will write for them.

The Net gives people a media they can control. This

control of information is a great power that has not

been available before to the common everyday person.

For example, Declan McCreesh describes how this

makes possible access to the most up-to-date informa-

tion.

From Declan McCreesh:

You get the most up to date info that

people around the world can get their

hands on, which is great. For instance,

the media report who wins a Grand

Prix, what happened and not a great

deal more. On the net, however, you

can get top speeds, latest car and tech-

nology developments, latest rumors,

major debates as to whether Formula 1

or Indy cars are better, etc.

The Net helps to make the information avail-

able more accurate because of the many-to-many or

broadcast and read and write capability. That new

capability, which is not normally very prevalent in our

society, allows an actual participant or observer to

report something. This capability gives the power of

journalism or the reporter to the individual. This new

medium allows the source to report. This is true

because the medium allows everyone online to make

a contribution. The old media instead controls who

reports and what they say. The possibility of eyewit-

ness accounts via the net can make the information

more accurate. Also, this opens up the possibility for

a grassroots network. Information is passed from per-

son to person around the world. Thus, German citizens

could learn about the Chernobyl explosion from the

Net before the government decided to release the infor-

mation to the public via the media. The connection is

people to people rather than governments to govern-

ments. Citizen Journalists can now distribute to more

than those they know personally. The distribution of

the writings of ordinary people is the second step after

the advent of the inexpensive personal computer in the

early 1980s. The personal computer and printer al-

lowed anyone to produce mass quantities of docu-

ments. Personal publishing is now joined by wide per-

sonal distribution.

Not only is there grassroots reporting, but the

assumption that filtering is necessary has been chal-

lenged. People can learn to sort through the various

opinions themselves. Steve Welch disagreed that the

Net is a source of more accurate information, but

agreed that people develop discriminatory reading

skills.

From Steve Welch:

When you get more information from

diverse sources, you don’t always get

more accurate information. However,

you do develop skills in discerning

Page 16

accurate information. Or rather, you do

if you want to come out of the infoglut

jungle alive.

Governments that rule based on control of

information will succumb eventually to the tides of

democracy. As Dr. Sun Yat-Sen of the Chinese De-

mocracy Movement once said, “The worldwide demo-

cratic trend is mighty. Those who submit to it will

prosper and those who resist it will perish.” The Net

reintroduces the basic idea of democracy as the grass-

roots people’s power of Netizens. Governments can no

longer easily keep information from their people.

Many groups which do not have an established

form of communications available to them have found

the Net to be a powerful tool. For example, for people

far away from their homeland, the Net provides a new

link.

From Godfrey Nolan:

The Net has immeasurably increased

the quality of my life. I am Irish, but I

have been living in England for the

past five years. It is a lot more difficult

to get information about Ireland than

you would expect. However, a man

called Liam Ferrie who works in Digi-

tal in Galway, compiles a newspaper

on the weeks events in Ireland and so I

can now easily keep abreast of most

developments in Irish current affairs,

which helps me feel like I’m not losing

touch when I go home about twice a

year. It is also transmitted to about

2000 Irish people all over the first and

third worlds.

From Madhur K. Limdi:

I read your above posting and wanted

to share my experience with you. I

have been a frequent reader of news in

Usenet groups, such as soc.culture.in-

dian, misc.news.southasia. Both of

these keep me reasonably informed

about the happenings in my home

country, India.

Also in the United States, the Net has provided

stable communications for people of various religious

and sexual persuasions. Many other communities have

also found the Net to be an excellent medium to help

increase communications:

From Gregory G. Woodbury:

We will be going to a march on Wash-

ington and are coordinating our plans

and travel with a large number of other

folks around the country via e-mail and

conversations on Usenet.

From Jann VanOver:

I’m a member of a Buddhist organiza-

tion and just found a man in Berkeley

who keeps a Mailing List that sends

daily guidance and discussions for this

group. So I get a little religious boost

when I log on each day.

From Carole E. Mah:

For me and for many of my friends, the

Net is our main form of communica-

tion. Almost every aspect of interper-

sonal communication on the network

has a gay/lesbian/bi aspect to it that

forms a tight and intimate acquain-

tanceship which sometimes even boils

over into arguments and enmities. This

network of connections, friends, ene-

mies, lovers, etc. facilitates political

goals that would not otherwise be pos-

sible (organizing letter-writing cam-

paigns about the Gays in the Military

Ban via the ACT–UP list, being able to

send e-mail directly to the White

House, finding out about activism,

bashing, etc. in other states and around

the world, etc.).

From Robert Dean:

As a member of the science fiction

community, I’ve met quite a few peo-

ple on the net, and then in person.

COMMUNICATION WITH NEW PEOPLE

In many Netizens’ lives, the Net has alleviated

feelings of loneliness, which seem common in today’s

society. The Net’s ability to help people network both

socially and intellectually makes the Net valuable and

irreplaceable in people’s lives. This is forming a group

of people who want to keep the Net accessible and

open to all.

The Net brings together people from diverse

walks of life, and makes it easier for these people to

communicate. It brings them all together into the same

virtual space and removes the impact or influence of

first impressions.

Malcolm Humes writes:

I’m in awe of the power and energy

Page 17

linking thousands into a virtual intel-

lectual coffee-house, where strangers

can connect without the formalities of

face-to-face rituals (hello, how are you

today) to allow a direct-connect style of

communication that seems to transcend

the ‘how’s the weather’ kind of con-

versation to just let us connect without

the bullshit.

Strangers are no longer strange on the Net.

People are free to communicate without limits, fears,

or apprehension. It used to be that there was a rather

generous atmosphere that thrived on the Net and that

welcomed new users. People were happy to help

others, often as a return for the help they had received.

Things have changed, and the general welcome to

new-comers is not as universally friendly, but there are

many online who still try and help new people. Others

are nasty, but the goodwill still overpowers the un-

friendly comments.

From Jean-Francois Messier:

My use of the Net is to get in touch

with more people around the world. I

don’t know for what, when, how, but

that’s important for me. Not that I’m in

a small town, far from everybody, but

that I want to be able to establish links

with others. In fact, because of those

nets I use, I would !NOT! want to go to

a small town, just because the phone

calls would be too expensive. I’ve to

say that I’m not an expressive person.

I’m not a great talker, nor somebody

who could make shows. I’m more of an

‘introvert.’

Yet Jean-Francois wrote me. This is just one

example of the social power of the Net. Another Net-

izen commented on how the Net helped her friend

strangers.

From Laura Goodin:

Last summer I was traveling to Denver,

and I used a listserv mailing list to find

out whether a particular running group

I run with had a branch there. They did,

and I had a wonderful time meeting

people with a common interest (and

drinking beer with them); I was no

longer a stranger.

BROADENED AND WORLDLY

PROSPECTIVE

Easy connection to people and ideas from

around the world has a powerful effect. Awareness that

we are members of the human species which spans the

entire globe changes a person’s point of view. It is a

broadening perspective. It is very easy for people to

assume a limited point of view if they are only exposed

to certain ideas. The Net brings the isolated individual

into contact with other people, experiences, and views

from the rest of the world. Exposure to many opinions

gives the reader a chance to actually consider multiple

views before settling on a specific opinion. Having

access to the “Marketplace of Ideas” allows a person

to make a reasoned judgment.

For example, from Jean-Francois Messier:

My attitudes to other people’s, races

and religions changed, since I had more

chances to talk with other people’s

around the world. When first exchang-

ing mail with people from Yellowknife,

Yukon, I had a real strange feeling: get-

ting messages and chatting with people

that far from me. I noticed around me

that a lot of people have opinions and

positions about politics that are for

themselves, without knowing others.

He continues:

Because I have a much broader view of

the world now, I changed and am more

conciliatory and peaceful with other

people. Writing to someone you never

saw changes the way you write, also,

the instancy of the transmission makes

the conversation much more ‘live’ than

waiting for the damn slow paper mail.

Telecommunications opened the world

to me and changed my visions of peo-

ple and countries.

From Anthony Berno:

I could not begin to tell you how differ-

ent my life would be without the Net.

My life would be short about a dozen

people, some of them central, I would

be wallowing in ignorance on several

significant subjects, and my mind

would be lacking many broadening and

enlightening influences.

From Henry Choy:

Page 18

More things to look at. Increased per-

spective on life. The computer network

brings people closer together and per-

mits them to speak at will to a large

audience. I recommend that the tele-

communications and computer industry

make large-scale computer networking

accessible to the general public. It’s

like making places accessible to the

handicapped. People brought closer to-

gether will release some existing social

tensions. People need to be heard, and

they need to hear.

From Paul Ready:

You don’t have to go to another coun-

try to meet people from there. It is not

the same as personally knowing them,

but I always pay special attention to

information from people outside the

States. They are likely to have a differ-

ent perspective on things.

From Leandra Dean:

I love to study people, and the Net has

been the best possible resource to this

end. The Net is truly a window to the

world, and without it we could only

hope to physically meet virtually thou-

sands of people every day to gain the

same insights. I shudder to think about

how different and closed in my life

would be without the Net.

MATERIAL CHANGES TO PEOPLE’S

LIVES AND LIFESTYLES

The time spent online can affect the rest of a

person’s life. The connections, interfaces or collabora-

tions between times on and off line form an interesting

area of study. Netizens attest to the power of the Net

by explaining the effect the Net has had on their lives.

Because of the information available and the new

connections possible, people have changed the way

they live their lives. There are examples of both

changes in the material possessions and changes in

lifestyle. The changes in lifestyle are probably the

more profound changes, but the new connections made

possible are important. Often, the material gains are

not financial. Rather, worthwhile goods can be redis-

tributed from those to whom the goods might have lost

personal value to those who would value the goods.

NETIZEN COMMENTS ON MATERIAL

CHANGES:

From William Carroll:

Primarily because of the information

and support from rec.bikes, three years

ago, I gave up driving to work and

started riding my bike. It’s one of the

best decisions I’ve ever made.

A Response I received via e-Mail:

When I started using ForumNet (a chat

program similar to irc, but smaller —

[Now called icb]) back in January

1990, I was fairly shy and insecure. I

had a few close friends but was slow at

making new ones. Within a few weeks,

on ForumNet, I found myself able to be

open, articulate, and well-liked in this

virtual environment. Soon, this discov-

ery began to affect my behavior in

“real” face-to-face interaction. I met

some of my computer friends in person

and they made me feel so good about

myself, like I really could be myself

and converse and be liked and wanted.

Of course, computer-mediated social

interaction is not properly a crutch to

substitute for face-to-face encounters,

but the ability to converse via keyboard

and modem with real people at the

other end of the line has translated into

the real-life ability for me to reach out

to people without the mediating use of

a computer. My life has improved. I

wouldn’t trade my experience with the

Net for anything.

From Jack Frisch:

I must begin my comments on the

Internet with one simple yet significant

statement: the availability and use of

the Internet is changing my life pro-

foundly.

From Carole E. Mah:

I also used to facilitate a vegetarian list,

which radically altered many people’s

lives, offering them access to mail-

order foods, recipes, and friendship via

net-contact with people who live in

areas where non-meat alternatives are

readily available.

Page 19

From Jann VanOver:

Well, the first thing I thought of is

purchases I’ve made through the Net

which have “changed my life” I drove

my Subaru Station-wagon until last fall

when I acquired a VW Camper van that

I saw on a local Net ad. I wasn’t look-

ing for a van, wasn’t even shopping for

another vehicle, but the second time

this ad scrolled by me, I looked into it

and eventually bought it. I will cer-

tainly say that driving a 23-year-old

VW camper van has changed my life!

I thought I would be ridiculed, but have

found that people have a lot of respect

and admiration for this car!

Jann goes on to write:

Through the Net, I heard that Roger

Waters was going to perform “The

Wall” again, an event I had promised

myself not to miss, so I made a trip to

Berlin (East and West) in 1990 to see

this concert. This was CERTAINLY a

life-changing event, seeing Berlin less

than one week after the roads were

open with no checkpoints required. I

don’t think I would have known about

it soon enough if not for the Net.

From Robert Dean:

As for me, my main hobby is and was

playing wargames and role-playing

games. Net access has allowed me to

discuss these games with players across

the world, picking up new ideas, and

gathering opinions on new games be-

fore spending money on them. In addi-

tion, I’ve been able to buy and sell

games via Net connections, allowing

me to adjust my collection of games to

meet my current interests, and get

games that I no longer wanted to peo-

ple who do want them, whether they

live down the road from me in Mary-

land, or in Canada, Austria, Finland,

Germany or Israel. I have also taken an

Esperanto course via e-mail, and corre-

spond irregularly in Esperanto with

interested parties world-wide.

From Caryn K. Roberts:

Usenet & Internet are available to me

at work and by dial-up connection to

work from home. I have been materi-

ally enriched by the use of the Net. I

have managed to sell items I no longer

needed. I have been able to purchase

items from others for good prices. I

have saved money and am doing my

part to recycle technology instead of

adding burdens to the municipal waste

disposal service.

Caryn continues:

Using the Net I have also been en-

riched by discussions and information

found in numerous newsgroups from

sci.med to sci.skeptic to many of the

comp.* groups. I have offered advice to

solve problems and have been able to

solve problems I had by using informa-

tion in these forums.

THE NET AS A SOURCE OF

ENORMOUS RESOURCES

Before the Net was widely seen as an enormous

social network, some were experimenting with the

sharing of computing resources. The following are

some examples of ways Netizens utilize the informa-

tion resources available on the Net.

From Tim North:

I’m faculty here at University and I use

the Net as a major source of technical

information for my lectures, up-to-date

product information, and informed o-

pinion. As such I find that I am con-

stantly better informed than the people

around me. (That sounds vain, but it’s

not meant to be. It’s simply meant to

emphasize how strongly I feel that the

Net is a superb information resource.)

From R.J. White:

I used the Net to find parts for my 1971

Opel GT. I was living in North Amer-

ica at the time, and going through the

normal channels, like GM, are no good.

The Net was like an untapped resource.

From John Harper:

[My] uses of the network [1] I once

asked a question about an obscure point

in history of math. On the sci.math

newsgroup and got a useful answer

from Exeter, U.K. Beforehand, I had no

Page 20

idea where anyone knowing the answer

might be. I had drawn a blank in Ox-

ford. [2] I asked a question about a

slightly less obscure point on comp

.lang.fortran which generated a long

(and helpful) discussion on the Net for

a week or two.

From Paul Ready:

Yes, it is a worldwide rapid distribution

center of information on topics both

popular and obscure. It may not make

the information more valuable, but it

certainly increases the information, and

the propagation of information. To

those connected, it is a valuable re-

source. Flame wars aside, a lot of gen-

erally inaccessible information is readi-

ly available.

From Lee Rothstein:

Usenet and mailing lists create a group

of people who are motivated and capa-

ble of talking about a specific topic.

The software allows deeply contextual

conversations to occur with a minimum

of rehash. As experience develops with

the medium, each user realizes that the

other that he talks to or will talk to gen-

erally help him/her, and can do him/her

no harm because of the remoteness

imposed by the cable.

From Lu Ann Johnson:

Hi! Usenet came to my rescue — I’m a

librarian and was working with a group

of students on a marketing project.

They were marketing a make-believe

product — a compact disc of “music

hits of the 70s.” They needed a source

to tell them how much it cost to pro-

duce a CD — without mastering, etc. I

exhausted all my print resources so I

posted the question in a business news-

group. Within hours, I learned from

several companies that it cost about

$1.50 to produce a CD :) The students

were very grateful to get the informa-

tion.

From Laura Goodin:

I teach self-defense, and in rec.martial-

art someone posted information about

a study on the effectiveness of Mace

for self-defense that I had been looking

for years.

From Cliff Roberts:

I have been using Internet through a

program in New Jersey to bring the

fields of Science and Math to grammar

school children grades K–8. We have

implemented a system where the class-

rooms are equipped with PCs and are

able to dial in to a UNIX system. There

they can send e-mail and post questions

to a KidsQuest ID. The ID then routes

the questions to volunteers with ac-

counts on UNIX. The scientists then

answer or give advice on where to find

the information they want. Another

well-accepted feature is to list out the

soc.penpals list and e-mail people in

different countries that are being stud-

ied in the schools.

From Joe Farrenkopf:

I think Usenet is a very interesting

thing. For me, it’s mostly just a way to

pass time when bored. However, I have

gotten some very useful things from it.

There is one group in particular called

comp.lang.fortran, and on several occa-

sions when I’ve had a problem writing

a program, I was able to post to this

group to get some help to find out what

I was doing wrong. In these cases, it

was an invaluable resource.

COLLECTIVE WORK

As new connections are made between people,

more ideas travel over greater distances. This allows

either like-minded people or complementary people to

come in touch with each other. The varied resources of

the networks allow these same people to keep in touch

even if they would not have been able to be in touch

before. Electronic mail allows enough detail to be con-

tained in a message that most, if not all, communica-

tions can take place entirely electronically. This me-

dium allows for new forms of collaborative work to

form and thrive. New forms of research will probably

arise from such possibilities. Here are some examples:

From Wayne Hathaway:

One ‘unusual’ use I made of the Net

happened in 1977. Along with five

other ‘Net Folks’ I wrote the following

Page 21

paper: ‘The ARPAN TELNET Proto-

col: Its Purpose, Principles, Implemen-

tation, and Impact on Host Operating

System Design,’ with Davidson, Postel,

Mimno, Thomas, and Walden: Fifth

Data Communications Symposium,

Snowbird, UT; September 27–29,

1977. What’s so unusual about a col-

laborative paper, you ask? Simply that

the six of us never even made a TELE-

PHONE call about the paper, much less

had a meeting or anything. Literally

EVERYTHING — from the first ideas

in a ‘broadcast’ mail to the distribution

of the final ‘troff-ready’ version — was

done with e-mail. These days, this

might not be such a deal, but it was

interesting back then.

From Paul Gillingwater:

… in Vienna was an online computer

mediated art forum, with video confer-

encing between two cities, plus an on-

line discussion in a virtual MUD-type

conference later that evening.

A Response I received via e-mail:

In response to your question about hav-

ing fun on the net, and being creative,

one incident comes to mind. I had met

a woman on ForumNet (a system like

IRC). She and I talked and talked about

all sorts of things. One night, we felt

especially artistic. We co-wrote a poem

over the computer. I’d type a few

words, she’d pick up where I left off

(in the middle of sentences or wher-

ever) and on and on. I don’t think we

had any idea what it was going to be in

the end, thematically or structurally. In

the end, we had a very good poem, one

that I would try to publish if I knew her

whereabouts anymore.

IMPROVING QUALITY OF EVERYDAY

LIFE

Information flow can take various shapes. The

strangest and perhaps most interesting one is how

emotion can be attached to information flow. They

often seem like two very different things. I received a

large number of responses that reported real-life

marriages arising from Net meetings. The Net facili-

tates the meeting of people of like interests. The

newness of the Net means we cannot fully understand

it as of yet. However, it is worth noting that people

have also broken up online. So while it is a new social

medium, a range of dynamics will exist.

From Caryn K. Roberts:

I have found friends on the Net. A

lover. And two of the friends I met,

also met online and got married. I at-

tended the wedding (in California).

From Scott Kitchen:

I think I can add something to your

paper. I met my fiancee four years ago

over the net. I was at Ohio State, and

she was in Princeton, and we started

talking about an article of hers I’d read

in rec.games.frp. We got to talking,

eventually met, found we liked each

other, and the rest is history. We were

married 31 December 1994.

From Gregory G. Woodbury:

I met the woman who became my wife

when I started talking to the folks at

“phs” (the third site of the original

Usenet) during the development of

Netnews. I would not have been wan-

dering around that area if I hadn’t been

interested in the development of the

net.

From Laura Goodin:

And now, the BEST story: about eight

months ago I was browsing soc.culture

.australia and I noticed a message from

an Australian composer studying in the

U.S. about an alternative tune to “Walt-

zing Matilda.” I was curious, so I

responded in e-mail, requesting the

tune and just sort of shooting the

breeze. We began an e-mail correspon-

dence that soon incorporated voice

calls as well.

One thing led inexorably to another,

and we fell in love (before we met face

to face, actually). We did eventually

meet face to face. Last month he pro-

posed over the Internet (in soc.culture

.australia) and I accepted. Congratula-

tory messages came in from all over

the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.

Houston (that’s his name) and I keep

Page 22

our phone bills from resembling the

national debt by sending 10 or 12 e-

mails a day (we’re well over 1400 for

eight months now), and chatting using

IRC. A long-distance relationship is

hellish, but the pain is eased somewhat

by the Internet.

From Chuq Von Rospach:

(oh, and in the ‘how the Net made my

non-net life better’ category, I met my

wife via the net. Does that count?)

WORK

The fluid connections and the rapidly changing

nature of the networks make the Net a welcome media

for those who are job hunting and for those who have

jobs to offer. The networks have a large turnover of

people who are looking for jobs. The placement of job

annoucements is easy and can be kept available for as

long as the job is offered. E-mail allows for the quick

and easy applications by sending resumes in the e-

mail. Companies can respond quickly and easily to

such submissions, also by e-mail.

Besides finding work, the Net helps people

who are currently working perform their job in the best

manner. Many people utilize the Net to assist them

with their jobs. Several examples of both follow:

From Laura Goodin:

My division successfully recruited a

highly qualified consultant (a Finn liv-

ing in Tasmania) to do some work for

us; the initial announcement was over

Usenet; subsequent negotiations were

through e-mail.

From jj:

I’ve hired people off the net, and from

meeting them in muds, when I find

somebody who can THINK. People

who can think are hard to find any-

where.

From Diana Gregory:

I have learned to use UNIX, and as a

result may be able to keep/advance in

my job due to the ‘net.

From Neil Galarneau:

It helps me do my job (MS Windows

programming) and it helps me learn

new things (like C++).

From Kieran Clulow:

The Internet access provided me by the

university has greatly facilitated my

ability to both use and program com-

puters, and this has had the direct result

of improving my grades as well as

gaining me a good job in the computer

field. Long live the Internet (and make

it possible for private citizens to get

access!)

From Mark Gooley:

I got my job by answering a posting to

a news-group.

From Anthony Berno:

I develop for NEXTSTEP, and the Net

is very useful in getting useful pro-

gramming hints, info on product re-

leases, rumors, etcetera.

From Gregory G. Woodbury:

Due to contacts made via Usenet and e-

mail, I got a job as a consultant at BTL

in 1981 after I lost my job at Duke. Part

of the qualifications that got me in the

door was experience with Usenet.

IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS WITH

FRIENDS

Another way of improving daily life is by making

communications with friends easier. The ease of sending e-mail

is bringing back letter writing. However, the immediacy of e-mail

means less care can be made in the process of writing. E-mail,

IRC and Netnews make it much easier to keep in touch with

friends outside one’s local area.

NETIZEN COMMENTS ON IMPROVED

COMMUNICATIONS

From Bill Walker:

I also have an old and dear friend (from

high school) who lives in the San Fran-

cisco area. After I moved to San Diego,

we didn’t do very well at keeping in

touch. She and I talked on the phone a

couple of times a year. After we dis-

covered we were both on the net, we

started corresponding via e-mail, and

we now exchange mail several times a

week. So, the Net has allowed me to

keep in much closer touch with a good

friend. It’s nothing that couldn’t be

done by phone, or snail mail, but some-

how we never got around to doing

those things. E-mail is quick, easy and

Page 23

fun enough that we don’t put it off.

From Anthony Berno:

Incidentally, it is also one of my pri-

mary modes of communication with

my sister (who lives in N.Z.) It’s more

meditative than a phone call, faster

than a letter, and cheaper than either of

them.

From Carole E. Mah:

It also facilitates great friendships.

Most of my friends, even in my own

town, I met on the network. This can

often alleviate feelings of loneliness

and “I’m the only one, I must be a per-

vert” feelings among queer people just

coming out of the closet. They have a

whole world of like-minded people to

turn to on Usenet, on Bitnet lists, on

IRC, in personal e-mail, on BBSs and

AOL type conferences, etc.

From Jann VanOver:

Apart from purchases, I have been con-

tacted by:

1) a very good friend from college

who I’d lost track of. She got married

to a man she met in a singles news-

group (they’ve been married two years

plus).

2) someone who went to my high

school, knew a lot of the same people I

did, but we didn’t know each other. We

are now ‘mail buddies.’

3) an old girlfriend of my brothers.

They went out for eight years, but I

learned more about her from ONE e-

mail letter than I had ever learned when

meeting her in person.

From Godfrey Nolan:

Above all it helps me keep in touch

with friends who I would inevitably

lose otherwise. The Net helps those

that move around for economic reasons

to lessen the worst aspects of leaving

your friends in the series of places that

you once called home. It’s the best

thing since sliced bread.

PROBLEMS

With all the positive uses and advantages of the

Net, it is still not perfect. The blind-view of people on

the Net seems to shield everyone, but women. There is

a relatively large male to female percentage population

on the Net. Women online can feel the effects of this

difference. Women who have easily identifiable user

names or IDs are prone to be the center of much

attention. While that might be good in itself, much of

that attention can be of a hostile or negative nature.

This attention might be detrimental to women being

active on the Net. Net harassment can spread against

other users too. People with unpopular ideas need to be

strong to withstand the outlash of abuse they might

receive from others.

The worst non-people problem seems to be

information overflow. Information adds up very quick-

ly and it can be hard to organize it all and sort through.

This problem should be solvable as technology is now

being developed to handle it.

From Scott Hatton:

There is a problem with this brave new

world in that a lot of people don’t ap-

preciate there’s another human being at

the other keyboard. Flaming is a real

problem — especially in comp.misc.

This is all a new facet of the technol-

ogy as well. People rarely trade insults

in real life like they do on Internet.

There’s a tendency to stereotype your

opponent into categories. I think this is

because you’re not around to witness

the results. I find this more on Internet

newsgroups than on CompuServe. I

think this is down to maturity — a lot

of folk on the Internet are students who

aren’t paying for their time on the sys-

tem. Those on CompuServe are nor-

mally slightly older, not so hot-headed

and are paying for their time. Damn.

Now I’m at stereotyping now. It just

goes to show.

From Joe Farrenkopf:

There is something else I’ve discovered

that is really rather fascinating. People

can be incredibly rude when communi-

cating through this medium. For exam-

ple, some time ago, I posted a question

to lots of different newsgroups, and

many people felt my question was in-

appropriate to their particular group.

They wrote to me and told me so, using

amazingly nasty words. I guess it’s

Page 24

easier to be rude if you don’t have to

face a person, but can say whatever you

want over a computer.

From Brad Kepley:

I get a little irritated with people al-

ways claiming someone else is ‘wast-

ing bandwidth’ because they disagree

with them. About half the time it turns

out that the person being told to shut up

was right after all. Then again, when

you look at things like alt.binaries.pic-

tures.erotica and other ‘non-bandwidth-

wasting’ activities, it seems almost

comical to me when someone says this.

There is nothing more wasteful than

95% of what Usenet is used for. It’s a

joke to say that a particular person is

‘wasting’ it. To say that they are off-

topic makes more sense. I guess this is

just a gripe rather than what you are

looking for. Wasting bandwidth again.

CONCLUSION

For the people of the world, the Net provides a

powerful means for peaceful assembly. Peaceful as-

sembly allows for people to take control over their

lives, rather than that control being in the hands of

others. This power deserves to be appreciated and pro-

tected. Any medium or tool that helps people to hold

or gain power is something that is special and has to be

protected.

The Net has made a valuable impact on human

society. As my research has demonstrated, people’s

lives have been substantially improved via their con-

nection to the Net. This sets the basis for providing

access to all in society. Using similar reasoning, J.C.R.

Licklider and Robert Taylor believed that access to the

then growing information network should be made

ubiquitous. They felt that the Net’s value would de-

pend on high connectivity. In their article, “The Com-

puter as a Communication Device,” they argued that

the impact upon society depends on how available the

network is to the society as a whole.

Society will improve if Net access is made

available to people as a whole. Only if access is

universal will the Net itself advance. The ubiquitous

connection is necessary for the Net to encompass all

possible resources. One Net visionary responded to my

research by calling for universal access.

Steve Welch writes:

If we can get to the point where anyone

who gets out of high school alive has

used computers to communicate on the

Net or a reasonable facsimile or succes-

sor to it, then we as a society will bene-

fit in ways not currently understand-

able. When access to information is as

ubiquitous as access to the phone sys-

tem, all hell will break loose. Bet on it.

Steve is right, “all hell will break loose” in the

most positive of ways imaginable. The philosophers

Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and all other

fighters for democracy would have been proud.

Similar to past communication advances, such

as the printing press, postal mail, and the telephone,

the Global Computer Communications Network has al-

ready fundamentally changed our lives. Licklider pre-

dicted that the Net would fundamentally change the

way people live and work. It is important to try to

understand this impact, so as to help further this

advance.

Notes for CHAPTER 1

1. See the Internet Society NEWS, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring 1993,

inside back cover for map.

2. J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, “The Computer as a

Communication Device,” reprinted in In Memoriam: J.C.R.

Licklider 1915-1990, Digital Research Center, August 7, 1990;

originally published in Science and Technology, April, 1968.

3. Ibid., p. 32.

4. Proceedings of IEEE, vol. 66 no. 11, November, 1978.

5. J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, p.32.

6. Stefferud, Einar et al., “Quotes from Some of the Players,”

ConneXions — The Interoperability Report, vol. 3 no. 10, Foster

City, California. October, 1989, p. 21.

7. See article by Larry Press posted on the comp.risks newsgroup,

September 6, 1991.

8. J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, p. 40.

Much thanks is owed to the many who contributed Usenet posts

and e-mail responses to requests for examples of how the Net has

changed people’s lives. Only a few of the many replies received

could be quoted but all contributed to this work.

The following people who were quoted chose that their e-mail

addresses be included:

Jim Carroll jcarroll@jacc.com

Kieran Clulow u1036254@vmsuser.acsu.unsw.edu.au

Robert Dean robdean@access.digex.net

Jack Frisch rischj@gbms01.uwgb.edu

Scott Hatton 00114.1650@CompuServe.com

Lu Ann Johnson ai411@yfn.ysu.edu

Jean-Francois Messie messier@igs.net

Page 25

Larry Press lpress@isi.edu

Chuq Von Rospach chuqui@plaidworks.com

Gregory G. Woodbury news@wolves.durham.nc.us

Last Updated: June 5, 1996

*Commercial use is prohibited*

Appendix to Chapter 1

The Posts for the Research

1. Is the Net a Source of Social/Economic Wealth? & Other

Thoughts

2. The Magic of E-Mail — Beginnings

3. Does the Net Bring Real-Life Advantages?

4. Looking for Exciting Uses of the Net

5. Connecting Others to the Net

6. Looking for Stories of Net Harassment

7. Does the Net Help You Be Creative or Have Fun?

IS THE NET A SOURCE OF SOCIAL/ECONOMIC

WEALTH? & OTHER THOUGHTS

POST:

Newsgroups: news.misc, alt.culture.usenet, alt.amateur-comp,

sci.econ, comp.misc, soc.misc, comp.org .eff.talk

Subject: Is the Net a Source of Social/Economic Wealth? & Other

Thoughts.

There are some notes I have made in trying to form a proposal for

a paper I am writing for an Independent Project in College. I

would appreciate any ideas or suggestions in e-mail. Please send

e-mail to me at: hauben@cs.columbia.edu. The points I would

most like some feedback on are 1-6. However, it might be useful

if anyone is interested in the question of whether or not the Net

(and its users) is a source of creation of economic, social, or

intellectual wealth. This might make an interesting discussion via

public follow-ups. My Proposal I want to understand this idea of

Internetworking and cooperative attitude. The social connections

and collaborations that the Internet and other parts of the global

computer network make possible are new and very important.

This more widespread communication brings the general populace

of the world in better intersection/global social intercourse.

Question about battle for use and right to utilize. And people have

taken the battle up in order to keep access open and for all. Forces

for restriction and censorship. Only through battle that net has

stayed open. Net *inherently* allows people choice to speak. Is it

secret that Usenet did restrict corporations/private from abusing

Net as it is research-oriented and developed only via because it

was an experiment? (NOT A FLAME)

*****1. What does communication over the networks mean? Is

it “value-added” somehow in that any response might bring

something added into the amount of information or value. Does

communication via the Net represent the quicker building by

people on other people’s work thus representing advancements (in

ideas, products, production, etc.)

*****2. Does the Net represent intellectual wealth? Does the net

represent the growth and increase in Gross National Product

/Wealth or Wealth of Nations? (What if any theoretical back-

ground is there to this?) William Petty maybe Bacon, or Royal

Society.

*****3. What does the Net make possible? Is the “Communica-

tion” on the net different than normal/before modes of communi-

cation? Does the widespread of connections and zero-time

(Ability to turnaround information and/or publication or exchange

of information in almost no time) of producing things prove

revolutionary?

*****4. Provides a Forum that facilitates Intellectual Ferment.

*****5. Net makes knowing real conditions of society possible —

because you have a “direct” connection to “many” people — the

masses.

*****6. Accurate Information (similar to point 5)

7. How does the network make these “connections” possible

easier than before? (These connections being finding people in the

world to enjoy exchanging information, debating, connecting

intellectually or whimsically — helping to find people who you

can or want to interact/communicate with.)

8. Who has access and can gain the advantage of this

service/connection/resource/revolution? Is this only an advantaged

group of people, or is it growing quickly? Or should it grow

quicker? What direction is access going toward for? What is

Clinton, etc. doing? (Business?) Is there a fight against the con-

tinued openness and/or growing openness of letting the great body

of people communicate accurate information that is normally con-

trolled in normal modes of mass media.

Thanks,

— Michael Hauben

THE MAGIC OF E-MAIL — BEGINNINGS

POST:

Subject: The Magic of E-Mail — Beginnings

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc, alt.amateur-comp, alt .folk-

lore.computers, soc.college, alt.culture.usenet, news.misc

Do you remember the first e-mail message you sent? Do you

remember the first e-mail you replied to? Do you remember the

first response you received in e-mail? Do you remember the first

e-mail response you received seemingly before you sent out the

original message? <chuckle> — Do you remember the magic?

Excitement is a key word, as is immense usefulness. Whether you

are a scientist, a student or a casual user, person-to-person

communication via the computer is *VERY* exciting. Remember

your first time and write it down. Keep your memory and save it

for posterity. You … We … are all part of what is a relatively

early period of the computer communications revolution. Save

your experience in order to help recognize and remember this

period of change — this beginning.

And if you do write down (or type in) your first (or first couple)

of real *exciting* e-mail beginnings please e-mail them to me. I

will try to post a summary to Usenet. And talk about e-mail from

page 18 e-mail or e-mail in response to Usenet, or e-mail in

connection with something before the current e-mail or what you

think might come in the future.

Thanks,

— Michael

DOES THE NET BRING REAL-LIFE ADVANTAGES?

POST:

Article 891 of alt.amateur-comp:

Newsgroups: soc.singles, rec.autos, soc.college, alt.amateur-

comp, soc.culture.usa, comp.misc

From: hauben@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben)

Subject: Does the Net Bring Real-Life Advantages?

Page 26

Message – ID: <C5II5B.KJr@cs.columbia.edu>

Summary: Has the Net improved or broadened your off line

world?

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 06:31:58 GMT

How has the Net changed your life? Has anyone who has used the

Net actually been able to add to their off line life successfully? I

am doing research for a paper for college, and I am interested in

the material changes that the Net helps develop through the

increased communication. Has access to the Net and your par-

ticipation on it allowed you to do something that you wouldn’t

have done before — off line? Anything would be interesting —

meeting people/new friends, marrying someone from online,

joining groups, certain opportunities that were there because of

the connection via the Net, etc. I am interested in hearing about

actions caused by use of any part of the Net (Usenet, talk, e-mail,

etc.). The *KEY* point is that the cause or facilitator of the event

needs to be because of the Net somehow. If you have any

interesting, or useful stories, or ideas please either e-mail them to

me, or post a follow-up to this message!

Thanks,

— Michael

LOOKING FOR EXCITING USES OF THE NET

POST:

Subject: Looking for Exciting Uses of the Net

I am doing research for a paper for a college independent study

about the net and communications. I would appreciate hearing

about using any part of the net: Usenet News/Netnews, IRC, e-

mail, mailing-lists, Freenets, FTP, WAIS, gopher, etc. I would

like to know about people’s uses of the network(s) that have been

especially interesting, valuable and/or exciting. I want to hear

about people’s delights and also about disappointments using the

Net. Please do NOT send me information about use by businesses

or corporations for commercial purposes. I am NOT interested in

commercial or proprietary uses. I AM interested in uses that serve

the public, that are open, that serve science, research, education,

and social aims and objectives. I am also interested in uses that

serve to help people personally on their work (programming, et

al.) or hobbies. Either e-mail me at hauben@cs.columbia.edu or

post a public follow-up. Both if possible. Thanks,

— Michael Hauben

CONNECTING OTHERS TO THE NET

Subject: Connecting Others to the Net

Newsgroups: news.misc, alt.culture, Usenet, alt.amateur-comp,

comp.misc, soc.misc

Hi,

I would like to hear from people the various ways in how they

have introduced others to Usenet and the Internet. What ways

have been successful and relatively inexpensive in getting family,

friends, and other associates connected? I am interested because

I am interested in people’s attempts (consciously or uncon-

sciously) to further the expansion of the Net. To the further

expansion of the Net! : )

— Michael Hauben

LOOKING FOR STORIES OF NET HARASSMENT

POST:

Subject: Looking for Stories of Net Harassment

Newsgroups: alt.censorship, news.misc, comp.mail.misc, alt.am-

ateur-comp

Have you ever experienced harassment on the net? Have you tried

to utilize the communicative aspects of Usenet, E-mail or other

computer networking capabilities but wound up discouraged?

Please let me know if you have been the victim of censorship,

harassment or some kind of blocking at some point in your usage

of computer-facilitated communication. If so, do you think this

“discouragement” was wrong or vicious, or malicious. Thank you,

— Michael

And lastly maybe it would be helpful to find out why you thought

you were treated such.

DOES THE NET HELP YOU BE CREATIVE OR HAVE

FUN?

POST:

Subject: Does the Net Help You Be Creative or Have Fun?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa, talk.bizarre, alt.mud, alt.irc,

news.misc, alt.culture.usenet, alt.amateur-comp, rec.music.misc,

rec.arts.misc

I am conducting research for an independent study about com-

puter and communication for college. So far I have asked and re-

ceived many “serious” answers and replies dealing with work,

keeping in touch with friends around the world, etc. However I am

also interested in what effect the Net (Netnews, the Internet, other

Nets, FTP, IRC, gopher, etc.) has on either creative endeavors you

might have, or just plain silly or fun things. Has access to the Net

helped you in any creative hobbies you might have, or just given

you a chance to have fun? For example. have your music tastes

expanded, or do you know about more plays happening, have you

learned about other who are musicians, or artists or writers? And

if so, have you gotten a chance to jam, paint, write, or somehow

help each other? Have there been any on-going creative collabora-

tive music/art/literary experiments? How has the computer as-

sisted communication helped you be creative or expanded your

boundaries? The other side is, have you found more ways to just

have fun, or of new ways of having fun.

As I am not exactly sure where to post this message, I would ap-

preciate any suggestions as to other groups to post the message to.

Thanks!

— Michael Hauben

[Editor’s Note: The following article explores the significance of

the concept of netizen as a new form of citizen and a new form of

the practice of citizenship. A version appeared in Rhetoric and

Communications Ejournal, Issue 27, March 2017. That journal

can be seen online at:

http://journal.rhetoric.bg and the article can

be seen at: https://rhetoric.bg/ronda-hauben-considerations-on-the-

significance-of-the-net-and-the-netizens.]

Considerations on the

Significance of the Net and

the Netizens*

by Ronda Hauben

Topics: netizens, communication processes, commu-

Page 27

nication channels, citizen empowerment, models for

democracy, nerves of government, social impact

Abstract

The book Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet celebrates in 2017 the 20

anniversary of its publication in English and Japanese

editions in 1997. The book documents how along with

the development of the Internet came the emergence of

a new form of citizen – the netizen. In his pioneering

online research in the early 1990s, Michael Hauben

gathered data and did analysis demonstrating that not

only the Internet but also the netizen would have an

important impact on society. This article explores

Hauben’s research recognizing that netizens are a new

social force. The article also looks at other contribu-

tions which help to provide a conceptual framework to

understand this new social force. Media theorist Mark

Poster’s work about netizens is discussed, as is Karl

Deutsch’s theoretical understanding of the role of

communication in creating a new model for good

government. But it is the candlelight revolution by

citizens and netizens in 2016-2017 in South Korea

which demonstrates in practice the importance of the

netizen forging a new governance model for participa-

tory democracy.

Key Words: netizens, communications, empower-

ment, impact, citizen, watchdog, democracy

Introduction

With the introduction of the Internet, the

question has been raised as to what its impact will be

on society. One significant result of the impact already

is the emergence of the netizen. Michael Hauben’s

work in the 1990s recognized the significant impact

not only of the development of the Internet but also of

the role of the netizen in forging new social and

political forms and processes.

While the role of netizens in working for social

change has been documented around the world, the

role of netizens in working for social and political

change has been an especially important aspect of the

South Korean experience for nearly the past two

decades. Most recently, however, widespread political

and economic corruption at the highest levels of South

Korean society has led citizens and netizens to take

part in peaceful but massive candlelight demonstra-

tions advocating the need for fundamental change in

the political and economic structures of South Korean

society. The question has been raised whether there are

models for such change. In such an environment, there

is a need to consider the importance of the Internet and

of the Netizen in helping to forge the new forms for

grassroots participation in the governing structures of

society. At such a time it seems appropriate to consider

the conceptual framework for the role of the netizen in

contributing to a new governing model for society

These developments in South Korea come at a time

when the book Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet celebrates the 20

anniversary

since its publication in 1997, making a review of the

significant contribution of the book particularly rel-

evant to the events of our time.

Looking Back

Twenty years ago in May 1997, the print

edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet was published in English.

Later that year, in October, a Japanese translation of

the book was published. In 2017, we are celebrating

the occasion of the 20

Anniversary of these publica-

tions.

In honor of this occasion, I want to both look

back and forward toward trying to assess the signifi-

cance of the book and of Michael Hauben’s discovery

of the emergence of the netizen. I want to begin to

consider what has happened in these 20 years toward

trying to understand the nature of this advance and the

developments the advance makes possible.

By the early 1990s, Hauben recognized that the

Internet was a significant new development and that it

would have an impact on our world. He was curious

about what that impact would be and what could help

it to be a beneficial impact. He had raised a series of

questions about the online experience. He received

responses to these questions from a number of people.

Reading and analyzing the responses, he explained:

There are people online who actively

contribute to 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 newcomers, who main-

tain FAQ files and other public infor-

mation repositories, who maintain

mailing lists, and so on. These are the

Page 28

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.

The book was compiled from a series of

articles written by Hauben and his co-author Ronda

Hauben which were posted on the Net as they were

written and which sometimes led to substantial com-

ments and discussion.

The most important article in the book was

Hauben’s article, “The Net and Netizens: The Impact

the Net Has on People’s Lives.” Hauben opened the

article with the prophetic words, which appeared

online first in 1993:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are

a Netizen (a Net Citizen) and you exist

as a citizen of the world thanks to the

global connectivity that the Net makes

possible. You consider everyone as

your compatriot. You physically live in

one country but you are in contact with

much of the world via the global com-

puter network. Virtually, you live next

door to every other single Netizen in

the world. Geographical separation is

replaced by existence in the same vir-

tual space.

Hauben goes on to explain that what he is

predicting is not yet the reality. In fact, many people

around the world were just becoming connected to the

Internet during the period in which these words were

written and posted on various different networks that

existed at the time. But now twenty years after the

publication of the print edition of Netizens, this

description is very much the reality for our time and

for many it is hard to remember or understand the

world without the Net.

Similarly, in his articles that are collected in the

Netizens book, Hauben looked at the pioneering vision

that gave birth to the Internet. He looked at the role of

computer science in the building of the earlier network

called the ARPANET, at the potential impact that the

Net and Netizen would have on politics, on journalism,

and on the revolution in ideas that the Net and Netizen

would bring about, comparing this to the advance

brought about by the printing press. The last chapter of

the book is an article Hauben wrote early on about the

need for a watchdog function over government in order

to make democracy possible.

By the time the book was published in a print

edition, it had been freely available online for three

years. This was a period when the U.S. government

was determined to change the nature of the Net from

the public and scientific infrastructure that had been

built with public and educational funding around the

world to a commercially driven entity. While there

were people online at the time promoting the privatiza-

tion and commercialization of the Internet, the concept

of netizen was embraced by others, many of whom

supported the public and collaborative nature of the

Internet and who wanted this aspect to grow and

flourish.

The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out of

a research project that Hauben had done for a class at

Columbia University in Computer Ethics. Hauben was

interested in the impact of the Net and so he formu-

lated several questions and sent them out online. This

was a pioneering project at the time and the results he

got back helped to establish the fact that already in

1993 the Net was having a profound impact on the

lives of a number of people.

Hauben put together the results of his research

in the article “The Net and Netizens” and posted it

online. This helped the concept of netizen to spread

and to be embraced around the world. The netizen, it

is important to clarify, was not intended to describe

every net user. Rather netizen was the conceptualiza-

tion of those on the Net who took up to support the

public and collaborative nature of the Net and to help

it to grow and flourish. Netizens at the time often had

the hope that their efforts online would be helpful

toward creating a better world.

Hauben described this experience in a speech

he gave at a conference in Japan. Subsequently, in

1997, his description became the preface to the

Netizens book, Hauben explained:

In conducting research five years ago

online to determine people’s uses of the

global computer communications net-

work, 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.

Hauben’s work, which is included in the book,

and the subsequent work he did, recognized the ad-

vance made possible by the Internet and the emergence

Page 29

of the Netizen.

The book is not only about what is wrong with

the old politics, or media, but more importantly, the

implications for the emergence of new developments,

of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of

what Hauben called the “poor man’s version of the

mass media.” He focused on what was new or emerg-

ing and recognized the promise for the future repre-

sented by what was only at the time in an early stage of

development.

For example, Hauben recognized that the

collaborative contributions for a new media would far

exceed what the old media had achieved. “As people

continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion

forums,” he wrote, “the collective population will

contribute back to the human community this new

form of news.”

In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s

work and of the publication of the book, both in its

online form and in the print edition, I want to look at

some of the implications of what has been written

since about netizens.

Mark Poster on the Implications of the

Concept of Netizen

One interesting example is in a book on the

impact of the Internet and globalization by Mark

Poster, a media theorist. The book’s title is Informa-

tion Please. The book was published in 2006. While

Poster does not make any explicit reference to the

book Netizens he finds the concept of the netizen that

he has seen used online to be an important one. He

offers some theoretical discussion on the use of the

“netizen” concept.

Referring to the concept of citizen, Poster is

interested in the relationship of the citizen to govern-

ment, and in the empowering of the citizen to be able

to affect the actions of one’s government. He considers

the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen as

a monument from the French Revolution of 1789. He

explains that the idea of the Rights of Man was one

effort to empower people to deal with governments.

But this was not adequate though the concept of the

rights of the citizen, he recognizes, was an important

democratic milestone.

“Human rights and citizenship,” he writes, “are

tied together and reinforce each other in the battle

against the ruling classes.”

He proposes that “these

rights are ensured by their inscription in constitutions

that found governments and they persist in their

association with those governments as the ground of

political authority.”

But with the coming of what he calls the age of

globalization, Poster wonders if the concept “citizen”

can continue to signify democracy. He wonders if the

concept is up to the task.

“The conditions of globalization and networked

media,” he writes, “present a new register in which the

human is recast and along with it the citizen.”

“The

deepening of globalization processes strips the citizen

of power,” he writes. “As economic processes become

globalized, the nation-state loses its ability to protect

its population. The citizen thereby loses her ability to

elect leaders who effectively pursue her interests.”

In this situation, “the figure of the citizen is

placed in a defensive position.”

To succeed in the

struggle against globalization he recognizes that there

is a need to find instead of a defensive position, an

offensive one.

Also he is interested in the media and its role in

this new paradigm. “We need to examine the role of

the media in globalizing practices that construct new

subjects,” Poster writes. “We need especially to ex-

amine those media that cross national boundaries and

to inquire if they form or may form the basis for a new

set of political relations.”

In this context, for the new media, “the impor-

tant questions, rather, are these:” he proposes, “Can the

new media promote the construction of new political

forms not tied to historical, territorial powers? What

are the characteristics of new media that promote new

political relations and new political subjects? How can

these be furthered or enhanced by political action?”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” Poster

notices, the name often given to the political subject

constituted on the Net is “netizen.” While Poster

makes it seem that the consciousness among some

online of themselves as “netizens” just appeared online

spontaneously, this is not accurate.

Before Hauben’s work, netizen as a concept

was rarely if ever referred to. The paper “The Net and

Netizens” introduced and developed the concept of

“netizen.” This paper was widely circulated online.

Gradually the use of the concept of netizen became

increasingly common. Hauben’s work was a process of

doing research online, summarizing the research,

analyzing it while welcoming online comments at

various stages of the process and then putting the

research back online, and of people embracing it. This

was the process by which the foundation for the con-

Page 30

cept of “netizen” was interactively established.

Considering this background, the observations

that Poster makes of how the concept of “netizen” is

used online represents a recognition of the significant

role for the netizen in the future development of the

body politic. “The netizen,” Poster writes, “might be

the formative figure in a new kind of political relation,

one that shares allegiance to the nation with allegiance

to the Net and to the planetary political spaces it

inaugurates.”

This new phenomenon, Poster concludes, “will

likely change the relation of forces around the globe.

In such an eventuality, the figure of the netizen might

serve as a critical concept in the politics of democrati-

zation.”

The Era of the Netizen

Poster characterizes the current times as the age

of globalization. I want to offer a different view, the

view that we are in an era demarcated by the creation

of the Internet and the emergence of the netizen.

Therefore, a more accurate characterization of this

period is as the “Era of the Netizen.”

The years since the publication of the book

Netizens have been marked by many interesting

developments that have been made possible by the

growth and development of the Internet and the spread

of netizens around the world. I will refer to a few

examples to give a flavor of the kind of developments

I am referring to.

An article by Vinay Kamat in the Reader’s

Opinion section of the Times of India referred to

something I had written. Quoting the article “The Rise

of Netizen Democracy”, the Times of India article said,

“Not only is the Internet a laboratory for democracy,

but the scale of participation and contribution is

unprecedented. Online discussion makes it possible for

netizens to become active individuals and group actors

in social and public affairs. The Internet makes it pos-

sible for netizens to speak out independently of institu-

tions or officials.”

Kamat points to the growing number of net-

izens in China and India and the large proportion of the

population in South Korea who are connected to the

Internet. “Will it evolve into a fifth estate?” Kamat

asks, contrasting netizens’ discussion online with the

power of the 4

estate, i.e., the mainstream media.

“Will social and political discussion in social

media grow into deliberation?” asks Kamat. “Will

opinions expressed be merely ‘rabble rousing’ or will

they be ‘reflective’ instead of ‘impulsive’?”

One must recognize, Kamat explains, the new

situation online and the fact that it is important to

understand the nature of this new media and not

merely look at it through the lens of the old media.

What is the nature of this new media, and how does it

differ from the old? This is an important area for

further research and discussion.

Looking for a Model

When visiting South Korea in 2008, I was

asked by a colleague if there is a model for democracy

that could be helpful for South Korea – a model

implemented in some country, perhaps in Scandinavia.

Thinking about the question I realized it was more

complex than it seemed on the surface.

I realized that one cannot just take a model

from the period before the Internet, from before the

emergence of the netizen. It is instead necessary that

models for a more democratic society or nation, in our

times, be models that include netizen participation in

society. Both South Korea and China are places where

the role not only of citizens but also of netizens is

important in building more democratic structures for

the society. South Korea appears to be the most

advanced in grassroots efforts to create examples of

netizen forms for a more participatory government

decision-making process.

But China is also a place

where there are significant developments because of

the Internet and netizens.

In China there have been a large number of

issues that netizens have taken up online which have

then had an impact on the mainstream media and

where the online discussion has helped to bring about

a change in government policy.

In looking for other models to learn from,

however, I also realized that there is another relevant

area of development. This is the actual process of

building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to

consider when seeking to understand the nature and

particularity of the evolving new models for develop-

ment and participation represented in the Era of the

Netizen.

In particular, I want to point to a paper by the

research scientist who many computer and networking

pioneers credit with providing the vision to inspire the

scientific work to create the Internet. This scientist is

JCR Licklider, an experimental psychologist who was

particularly interested in the processes of the brain and

in communication research.

Page 31

In a paper Licklider wrote with another psy-

chologist, Robert Taylor, in 1968 a vision was set out

to guide the development of the Internet. The title of

the paper was “The Computer as a Communication

Device.”

The paper proposed that essential to the

processes of communication is the creation and sharing

of models. That the human mind is adept at creating

models, but that the models created in a single mind

are not helpful in themselves. Instead it is critical that

models be shared and a process of cooperative model-

ing be developed in order to be able to create some-

thing that many people will respect.

Nerves of Government

In his article comparing the impact of the Net

with the important impact the printing press had on

society, Hauben wrote, “The Net has opened a channel

for talking to the whole world to an even wider set of

people than did printed books.”

I want to focus a bit

on the significance of this characteristic, on the notion

that the Net has opened a communication channel

available to a wide set of people.

In order to have a conceptual framework to

understand the importance of this characteristic, I

recommend the book by Karl Deutsch titled; The

Nerves of Government. In the preface to this book,

Deutsch writes:

This book suggests that it might be pre-

ferable to look upon government some-

what less as a problem of power and

somewhat more as a problem of steer-

ing; and it tries to show that steering is

decisively a matter of communica-

tion.

To look at the question of government not as a

problem of power, but as one of steering, of communi-

cation, I want to propose is a fundamental paradigm

shift.

What is the difference?

Political power has to do with the ability to

exert force on something so as to affect its direction

and action. Steering and communication, however, are

related to the process of the transmission of a signal

through a channel. The communication process is one

related to whether a signal is transmitted in a manner

that distorts the signal or whether it is possible to

transmit the signal accurately. The communication

process and the steering that it makes possible through

feedback mechanisms are an underlying framework to

consider in seeking to understand what Deutsch calls

the “Nerves of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked

at as a self-steering communication system of a certain

kind and the messages that are used to steer it are

transmitted via certain channels.

Some of the important challenges of our times

relate to the exposure of the distortions of the informa-

tion being spread. For example, the misrepresentations

by the mainstream media about what happened in

Libya in 2011 or what has been happening in Syria

since 2011.

The creation and dissemination of

channels of communication that make possible “the

essential two-way flow of information” are essential

for the functioning of an autonomous learning organi-

zation, which is the form Deutsch proposes for a

well-functioning system.

To look at this phenomenon in a more practical

way, I want to offer some considerations raised in a

speech given to honor a Philippine librarian, a speech

given by Zosio Lee. Lee refers to the kind of informa-

tion that is transmitted as essential to the well being of

a society. In considering the impact of netizens and the

form of information that is being transmitted, Lee asks

the question, “How do we detect if we are being

manipulated or deceived?”

The importance of this question, he explains, is

that; “We would not have survived for so long if all the

information we needed to make valid judgments were

all false or unreliable.” Also, he proposes that “infor-

mation has to be processed and discussed for it to

acquire full meaning and significance.”

“When

information is free, available, and truthful, we are

better able to make appropriate judgments, including

whether existing governments fulfill their mandate to

govern for the benefit of the people,” Lee writes.

In his article “The Computer as a Democr-

atizer,” Hauben similarly explores the need for accu-

rate information about how the government is func-

tioning. He writes, “Without information being avail-

able to them, the people may elect candidates as bad as

or worse than the incumbents. Therefore, there is a

need to prevent government from censoring the infor-

mation available to people.”

Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate

information as to how their representatives are fulfill-

ing their role. Once these representatives have abused

their power, the principles established by [Thomas

Paine] and [James Mill] require that the public have

the ability to replace the abusers.”

Page 32

Channels of accurate communication are cri-

tical in order to share the information needed to de-

termine the nature of one’s government.

Conclusion

The candlelight revolution is still in process in

South Korea. It is demonstrating in practice that we are

in a period when the old forms of government are

outmoded. The paper by Licklider and Taylor proposes

that the computer is a splendid facilitator for coopera-

tive modeling. It is such a process of cooperative

modeling that offers the potential for creating not only

new technical and institutional forms, but also new

political forms. Such new political forms are more

likely to provide for the democratic processes that are

needed for the 21

century. Hence it is the efforts of

citizens and netizens who are involved in collaborative

modeling to create more participatory forms and

structures. as is happening during the candlelight

processes being explored in South Korea, that provide

for the development of a more equitable and demo-

cratic society.

References/Citations

1. Hauben, M., R. Hauben, (1997), Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer

Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in an earlier draft ver-

sion,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. Retrieved on Jan. 18,

2017.

2. IBID., p. ix.

3. IBID., p. 233.

4. Poster, M., (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke

University Press, p. 68.

5. IBID.

6. IBID., p. 70.

7. IBID., p. 71.

8. IBID.

9. IBID., p. 77.

10. IBID., p. 78.

11. IBID.

12. IBID., p. 83.

13. Kamat, V. (2011, December 16), “We are looking at the Fifth

Estate,” Reader’s Opinion, Times of India, p. 2.

http://timesof

india .ind iati mes.co m/edit -page/ampnbspWe-are-look

ing-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms, Retrieved on

Jan. 10, 2017. The quote is taken from Hauben, R. “The Rise of

Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of Netizens’ Impact on

Democracy in South Korea”

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

/other/misc/korean-democracy.txt, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

14. In South Korea, there are many interesting examples of new

organizational forms or events created by netizens. For example,

Nosamo combined the model of an online fan club and an off-line

gathering of supporters who worked to get Roh Moo-hyun elected

as President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews, an online

newspaper, helped to make the election of Roh Moo-hyun

possible. Science mailing lists and discussion networks contrib-

uted to by netizens helped to expose the fraudulent scientific work

of a leading South Korean scientist. And in 2008 there were 106

days of candlelight demonstrations contributed to by people online

and off line to protest the South Korean government’s adoption of

a weakened set of regulations about the import of poorly inspected

U.S. beef into South Korea. The debate on June 10-11, 2008, over

the form the demonstration should take involved both online and

off line discussion and demonstrated the generative nature of

serious communication. See for example, Hauben, R. “On Grass-

roots Journalism and Participatory Democracy.”

http://www.

columbia.edu/~rh120/other/netizens_draft.pdf, Retrieved on Jan.

10, 2017.

15. Some examples include the Anti-CNN website that was set up

to counter the inaccurate press reports in the western media about

the riot in Tibet. The murder case of a Chinese waitress who killed

a Communist Party official in self defense. The case of the

Chongqing Nail House and the online discussion about the issues

involved. See for example, Hauben, R. (2010, February 14). “Chin

a in the Era of the Netizen.” http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010

/02/14/china_in_the_era_of_the_ netizen/, (No longer available.)

16. IBID., Netizens.

17. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” (1968, April)

Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, pp. 21-

41. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.

18. The Licklider and Taylor paper also points out that the sharing

of models is essential to facilitate communication. If two people

have different models and do not find a way to share them, there

will be no communication between them.

19. IBID., Netizens, p. 299

20. Deutsch, K., (1966), Nerves of Government, New York, The

Free Press, p. xxvii.

21. See for example, Hauben, R., (2012, Winter), “Libya, the UN

and Netizen Journalism,” The Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21, No.

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf, Retrieved Jan. 10,

2017 and Hauben, J., (2007), “On the 15

Anniversary of

Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.”

http:/

/www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Book_Anniversary/presentation

_2.doc, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

22. Lee, Z. (2011), “Truthfulness and the Information Revolu-

tion,” JPL 31, p. 105.

23. IBID., p. 106.

24. IBID., p. 108.

25. IBID., Netizens, p. 316.

26. IBID., Netizens, p. 317.

27. M. Hauben explains: “Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man,

describes a fundamental principle of democracy. Paine writes,

‘that the right of altering the government was a national right, and

not a right of the government’.” (Netizens, Chapter 18, p. 316)

28. Hauben, R., (2016, December 21), “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea of

Leadership or the Candlelight Model for More Democracy?,”

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/12/21/leadership-

-or-candlelight-democracy/, (No longer available.)

Bibliography

Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of Government. New York: The Free

Press. New York.

Hauben, M. & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the History and

Page 33

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE

Computer Society Press. Online edition: http://www.col

umbia.edu/~rh120. Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Hauben, R. (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case

Study of Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South

Korea.” Unpublished paper. Retrieved from

http://www

. c o l um b i a . e d u / ~ h a u b e n / r o n d a 2 0 1 4 / R i s e _ o f

_Netizen_Democracy.pdf, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Komat, V. (2011, December 16, p. 2). Reader’s Opinion: “We’re

Looking at the Fifth Estate.” Times of India. Retrieved

from

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion

/edit-page/We-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/opinions/

11133662.cms, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Lee, Z. E. (2011). “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,”

Journal of Philippine Librarianship, 31. pp. 101-109.

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article

/viewFile/2779/2597. (No longer available.)

Licklider, JCR, & Taylor, R. “The Computer as a Communication

Device 017.

Poster, M. (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University

Press.

* This article is a revised version of a presentation made on May

1, 2012 at a small celebration in honor of the 15

Anniversary of

the publication of the print edition of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.

[Editor’s Note: In 2001, the OECD published Social Science and

Innovation, a workshop proceedings examining the contribution

of the social sciences to improving understanding of social and

technological innovation processes. Below is a brief review of its

Chapter 15, “Social Sciences and the Social Development Process

in Africa” by Charly Gabriel Mbock and Mbock’s view of the

value of netizens.]

Netizens Providing Hope for

Future Development

by Ronda Hauben

In his article “Social Science and the Social

Development Process in Africa” Charly Gabriel

Mbock, critiques the structural adjustment model of

development that has pauperized Africa. He describes

how loans were made by western countries which

benefited a small segment of African society and the

western nations that made the loans. These left a debt

of not only the loan but also continuing interest pay-

ments which the people of Africa have to pay back

despite the fact they never benefited from the loans

themselves.

In place of the “structural adjustment program”

that brought the people of Africa so much trouble,

Mbock proposes a “democratic adjustment program.”

“No one can stop the globalization process,”

Mbock writes, “But perhaps a world of global netizens

could help to mitigate the consequences of the global

economy.”

Will the situation improve,” Mbock asks, “if

the future brings ‘netizenship’ to Africans?”

He writes:

Michael and Ronda Hauben are of the

opinion that the Net and the new com-

munications technologies will encour-

age people to shifting from citizenry to

netizenry, away from ‘geographical

national definition of social member-

ship to the new non-geographically

based social membership (Netizens,

Hauben and Hauben, 1997, pp. x-xi.)

“The dream of worldwide ‘netizenry,’ Mbock

writes, “is the creation of a global community devoted

to a more equitable sharing of world resources through

efficient interactions.”

Quoting from Netizens, he writes:

A Netizen (Net citizen) exists as a

citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net makes possi-

ble. You consider everyone your com-

patriot. You physically live in one

country but you are in contact with

much of the world via the global com-

puter network. Virtually you live next

door to every other single Netizen in

the world. Geography and time are no

longer boundaries (…) A new, more

democratic world is becoming possible

as a new grassroots connection that

allows excluded sections of society to

have a voice. (Mbock referring to

Hauben and Hauben, 1997, pp. 3-5)

“If such a global community were to become reality,

then community ways would prevail over market

values,” writes Mbock. “As an efficient and demo-

cratic breakthrough, technological innovation would

lead to deep-seated social transformations resulting in

global change … .” (p. 165)

“The hypothesis of a new world order,” Mbock

proposes, “is an opportunity for catch-up of countries

in Africa to create “a forum through which people

influence their governments, allowing for the dis-

cussion and debate of issues in a mode that facilitates

mass participation.” (Hauben and Hauben, 1997, p. 56)

Page 34

“The outcome would be netdemocracy,”

Mbock writes, “with a three-pronged system of dia-

logue; dialogue among the citizens of a given country,

dialogue among these citizens and their local or

national government, and dialogue among ‘netizens.’

The world as a global community of ‘netizens,’ would

then, ‘at last’ possess its long-awaited engine for

effective and social development in Africa.” (p. 165)

“To Sean Connell,” Mbock writes, referring to

a quote from Connell in Netizens, “the Net is a high-

way to real democracy, “a means to create vocal,

active, communities that transcend race, geography

and wealth,” a mechanism through which everybody

can contribute to the governing of his or her country”

(Hauben and Hauben, 1997, p. 249).

Mbock argues that:

(A)s a new paradigm shift from citizen-

ship to genuine ‘netizenship’ is the

worldwide innovation that social scien-

tists should herald, and not only for

Africa. This implies looking beyond

national citizen passports, to negotiate

global, ‘netizen’ ones.

Notes

1. Charly Gabriel Mbock, “Social Science and the Social Devel-

opment Process in Africa,” in Social Science and Innovation,

OECD, 2001, p. 161. The whole book can be read for free at:

ht tp s :// www.go o g le . c om/b o oks /e d i ti o n/ So c i al _ S ci e

nces_and_Innovation/LncFo1_SDxcC. Chapter 15 is on pages 157

to 169.

2. Ibid., p. 160.

3. Ibid., p. 165.

4. Ibid., p. 166.

5. Ibid.

[Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a leaflet distributed in

New York City on February 15, 2003 at a rally in opposition to

the war against Iraq (known as the Second Gulf War). Most of its

arguments continued to be relevant in 2025.]

Communication Not

Annihilation, No War on Iraq

Netizens Unite

Today’s marches around the world demonstrate

the power of the Netizens. There is a need for global

communication to be utilized to solve the enormous

problems in our modern world. More citizens and

netizens around the world can now participate in

helping each other to solve what otherwise would be

impossible difficulties.

What is a Netizen?

The concept of Netizen grew out of research

online in 1992-1993. This was before the commercial-

ization of the Internet. Contrary to popular mythology

the numbers of people connecting to the Internet was

growing by large numbers each year. There began to

be Free-Nets springing up to provide community

people with access to the Internet.

A student doing online research, Michael

Hauben, writes:

The story of Netizens is an important

one. In conducting research… online to

determine people’s uses for the global

computer communications network, I

became aware that there was a new

social institution, an electronic com-

mons, 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.

(from Preface to Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu

/~hauben/netbook/)

The Internet was making it possible for people

who got access to communicate with others around the

world. And there were people online who did what

they could to connect others to the Internet and to

make the Internet something valuable for people

around the world. The student documented this devel-

opment in his paper “The Net and Netizens: The

Impact the Net has on People’s Lives”.

The paper was posted online in 1993. The

concept of Netizen spread round the world and has

been adopted by many who continue to contribute to

the development of the Internet as a global commons

and to spread access to the global communication the

Internet makes possible.

We need the vision of the Internet and the

Netizen, that both its early pioneers and the users that

the student in 1992/3 found online, have embodied.

This is as a network of networks linking people around

the globe where online users act as netizens helping to

solve the problems of the Internet and of the society.

People online and people who aren’t online,

Page 35

can help to make the vision of the Internet pioneers

and users a reality. We don’t want war in Iraq. We

don’t want war in North Korea or Iran. We don’t want

war against the Palestinians. We want to communicate

with each other and collaborate together to have the

wealth of society go to its people so that the better

world that is now possible, becomes a reality. It’s a

hard and difficult struggle. But with lots of netizens

around the world, we can forge a better world.

Long live the Netizens

Long live the Iraqi People

[Long live the Palestinian People]

Long live the American People

Long live the peace loving people everywhere

Let us honor the memory of those who have

perished in the struggle.

NETIZENS UNITE AND SPREAD THE INTER-

NET SO EVERYONE HAS ACCESS

Let us continue to take up the challenge to

make the Internet a global commons that all can

contribute to and build.

Dedicated to Michael Hauben (1973-2001). Written to honor his

memory and to continue his contributions to make the world a

better place.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All Amateur Computerist issues from 1988 to the present are

available at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf.

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

mailto:jrh29@columbia.edu

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a

non profit publication provided credit is given, with name

of author and source of article cited.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 36