The Amateur
Computerist
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Summer 2025 Michael Hauben -- The Net and Netizens Volume 40 No. 1
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 1
Researching the “Net” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
Vision of Interactive Computing and the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11
Computer as a Communications Device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18
Chapter 1 The Net and Netizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21
Significance of the Net and the Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 54
Netizens Providing Hope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 68
Communication Not Annihilation, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 70
Introduction
In 1992–1993, Michael Hauben did preliminary research and had
some online discussion leading to the creation and development of the
concept of netizenship, a new form of citizenship, that was developing
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 development and growth of the
global computer Network, and does that vision still guide the Net?” or
Page 1
“What advance does Computer Communication represent to our society?”
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, “Considerations 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
st
Century. You are a Netizen, 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 compatriot. You
physically live in one country, but you are in contact with much of the
world via the global computer network. Virtually you live next door to
every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation 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 infrastructure currently exists. The Net — or the
Internet, BITNET, FIDOnet, other physical networks, Usenet, VMSnet,
and other logical networks and so on — has rapidly grown to cover all the
Page 2
developed countries in the world. Every day more computers attach to the
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 publicly from individuals to the collective mass
of many on the net — is possible. The old model of central distribution of
information from the Network Broadcasting 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 advantageous to one or both
parties.
The complete connection of the body of citizens 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 possible expansion of what it means to be
Page 3
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 computer
networks allow a more advanced connection between the people who are
communicating. 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 Netizens 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 position 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. Informa-
tion 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 continually 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
Page 4
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 Taylor in their article “The Computer as a
Communication Device” (Science and Technology, April 1968). Licklider
brought to his leadership of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) a vision of “the intergalactic computer
network.” 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 “conversation” free and
easy.
3) The larger network would form out of smaller regional networks.
4) Communities would form out of affinity and common interests.
Licklider focused on the Net comprising a network 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 computer together with its local community of users —
will become a node in a geographically distributed computer net-
work …. 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 combi-
nations of those resources.
32
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 computing and human resources accurately describes today’s 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 resulted from the process.
Page 5
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 connected only by
limited gateways. So the capability of networking on computer nets
overcomes limitations inherent in non-computer social networks. This is
important because it reduces the problems of population growth. Popula-
tion 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 perspec-
tives 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 contributions 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 people 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 networks 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.
Page 6
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 people
can now gain something from the Net, while at the same time helping it
out. A critical mass has developed 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 become super
important in the last couple of years because a critical mass of
membership was reached. I no longer work in LA, but in cyber-
space.
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 experience to explore the Net for more than just
technical reasons. The nets, in their early days, were only available 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 pro-
totype 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 connection 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. (ConneXions, 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, professor emeritus, and so on). Programmers, engineers
and researchers from many companies are connected. A K–12 Net exists
within the lower grades of education which helps to invite young people
Page 7
to be a part of our community. Special Bulletin Board software (for ex-
ample, 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 modem 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 library 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 continually growing body of digitized data that
forms a set of resources. Whether it is Netizens digitizing great literature
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 contribut-
ing new and original material (e.g.: the Amateur Computerist Newsletter),
the net follows in the great tradition of other public bottom-up 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 programmed 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 “anony-
mous” 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
Page 8
than it is currently. Commercial interests 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
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 contributions 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 assembly 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 Computerist
Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 5, Fall 1992.)
J.C.R. Licklider believed that access to the then growing information
network should be made ubiquitous. He felt that the Nets value would
depend on high connectivity. In his article, “The Computer as a Communi-
cation 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 question: 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 amplification,’ the network may
exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual
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
Page 9
their connection to the Net. This enhancement of people’s lives provides
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 universal 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 successor to it, then we as a society will
benefit in ways not currently understandable. When access to
information is as ubiquitous as access to the phone system, 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 Global 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.columbia.edu/~hauben/net
book_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.]
Page 10
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
ignoring. However, understanding this history is a crucial 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-
ical and Logical networks.
While the nets are basically young (the ARPANET started 25 years
before 1994), this 25 year growth is substantial. The ARPANET was the
Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency’s experimen-
tal network connecting the mainframes of universities and other Depart-
ment of Defense (DoD) contractors. The ARPANET initially started out
as a testbed of computer networking, communications protocols, 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 resubmitted, 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
Page 11
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 multiple people
utilizing the computer (then mainframes) simultaneously. Time-sharing
operated by giving the impression that the user is the only one on the
computer. 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
Computing. Interactive computing meant the user had a way to communi-
cate 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 Babbage 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, probably more than anybody, was some-
thing that we had to start seriously thinking about. So in a way,
networking grew out of Lick’s talking about that, although Lick
himself could not make anything happen because it was too early
when he talked about it. But he did convince me it was impor-
tant. (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.
Page 12
It was really a fortunate circumstance. I think most of the sig-
nificant advances in computer technology, especially in the
systems part of computer science over the years … were simply
extrapolations 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 researchers began to think about social issues related to timesharing.
One such topic was the formation of communities of the people who used
the time-sharing systems. Fernando Corbato and Robert Fano wrote:
The time-sharing computer system can unite a group of investi-
gators in a cooperative 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 according to his needs. Project-
ing the concept on a large scale, one can conceive of such a
facility as an extraordinarily powerful library serving an entire
community — in short, an intellectual public utility. (“Time-
sharing on Computers” in Information, p. 76)
Robert Taylor spoke about some of the unexpected 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-sharing system, let’s
say at MIT, then there were a lot of individual people who didn’t
know each other who were interested in computing in one way
or another, and who were doing whatever they could, however
they could. As soon as the time-sharing system became usable,
these people began to know one another, share a lot of informa-
tion, and ask of one another, “How do I use this? Where do I find
that?” It was really phenomenal to see this computer 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 digitally isolated
Page 13
from the other one. I saw a phrase in the Licklider memo. The
phrase was in a totally different context — something that he re-
ferred 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-sharing 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. Examining
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 Interviewees 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 computer 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 computer field that are trained, and knowledgeable, 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 program 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 univer-
Page 14
sity. (CBI Oral Interview, Roberts, p. 29)
The influence on academia led to a profound effect on the future of
the computer industry. Roberts continues:
So it was clear that that was a big impact 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 networking
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 Computer as a Communications
Device” which foresaw today’s Net. They wrote:
We have seen the beginnings of communication through a
computer — communication among people at consoles located
in the same room or on the same university campus or even at
distantly separated laboratories of the same research and devel-
opment organization. This kind of communication — through a
single multi-access computer with the aid of telephone lines —
is beginning to foster cooperation and promote 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 geographically distributed computer net-
work. Let us assume for a moment that such a network has been
formed …. Through the network of message processors, there-
fore, 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
Page 15
with a selected combination of those resources. (IBID., p. 32)
Licklider and Taylor exhibit their interest in more than just hardware
and software when they continue to think about the new social dynamics
the connections of disperse computers and people will create. The authors
continue:
[These communities] will be communities not of common lo-
cation, but of common interest. In each field, the overall commu-
nity of interest will be large enough to support a comprehensive
system of field-oriented programs and data. (IBID., p. 38)
In exploring this community of common affinity, 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 commu-
nication and interaction will be with programs and programming
models, which will be (a) highly responsive, (b) supplementary
to one’s own capabilities, rather than competitive, and (c) cap-
able of representing progressively more complex ideas without
necessarily displaying all the levels of their structure at the same
time — and which will therefore be both challenging and re-
warding. And, fourth, there will be plenty of opportunity for
everyone (who can afford a console) to find his calling, for the
whole world of information, with all its fields and disciplines,
will be open to him, with programs 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:
For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending mainly
on the question: 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 amplification,’ the network may
Page 16
exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual op-
portunity. (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 envisioned in hope, if not in concrete detailed plan, and
if all minds should prove to be responsive, surely the boon to
humankind would be beyond measure. (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 Information
Infrastructure is being designed with the principle 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 original 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 technolo-
gies 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 government 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 (September 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 Communication Device,” in
Page 17
Science and Technology April, 1968, p. 40.
Roberts, Lawrence. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.
Taylor, Robert. Charles Babbage Institute Oral Interview.
.edu/cbi/cbi-oral-histories.
[Editor’s Note: The following is a post made on Usenet on April 3, 1994. It is archived
/4EIkUjlukM8/m/Bjah7MPuFGcJ]
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 computer as a communications
device has introduced to society as a whole and computer
science?
or
What new capability or role or utility can the computer (facilitat-
ing communications) help fulfill?
I feel that by tracing the evolution of the computer as a communica-
tions 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 computer as a machine has
facilitating communications. I am focusing on communications as opposed
to computation. In addition I am focusing on Human Communication
rather than Man — Machine Communication.
Following are some thoughts that I would be interested in any
discussion about or comments on:
Page 18
A) Often the computer is painted as a multi-function machine. However,
this multi-fuctionality often rests on the ability of the computer as
capable 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
community 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
possibilities 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,
Christopher Strachey, R. M. Fano, F. J. Corbato, John Kenemy,
among others.) Others have been by people who were involved with
the experimentation and developing of interconnecting computers
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. However, 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
Page 19
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 introduced to the
possibilities. And this includes others who use computers. Thus, I am
interested in hearing people’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 important to study the computer as a communi-
cations device:
People have a fundamental need to communicate, and Usenet
News aptly fills the bill.
(See, e.g., Gregory G. Woodbury’s “Net Cultural Assumptions.”)
I think/feel that computer communications (done between
humans via computers) lie somewhere between written and
verbal communications in style and flavor. There is an ambience
of informality and stream-of-consciousness style that pervades it,
but coupled with ideas that are well thought out (usually) and
deeper in insight than average verbal 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 telecommunications.”)
— Our emphasis on people is deliberate. A communications
engineer thinks of communicating as transferring information
from one point to another in codes and signals.
But to communicate is more than to send and to receive. Do two
tape recorders 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 information they send and receive. And to interact with
the richness of living information — not merely in the passive
way that we have become accustomed to using books and
libraries, but as active participants in an ongoing process,
bringing something to it through our interaction with it, and not
Page 20
simply receiving from it by our connection to it … . We want to
emphasize something beyond its one-way transfer: the increasing
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 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-Device.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_Common_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
st
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 computer network. Virtually you live next door to
every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is
replaced by existence in the same virtual space.
The situation I describe is only a prediction of the future, but a large
Page 21
part of the necessary infrastructure currently exists. The Net — or the
Internet, BITNET, 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.
1
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
increased 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 publicly from individuals to the collective mass
of many on the Net is possible. The old model of distribution of informa-
tion 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 citizens of the world that the
Net makes possible does not 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
Page 22
every other person on the Net. International connection coexists on the
same level with local connection. Also, the computer networks allow a
more advanced connection between the people who are communicating.
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 Netizens 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 cal-
ling 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 example 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 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. Informa-
tion 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 con-
tinually 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
Page 23
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 pos-
sibilities 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 Defense’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.
2
They clarified their definition of
communication as a creative process, differentiating between communica-
tion and the sending and receiving of information. When two tape re-
corders send or receive information to each other that is not communica-
tion. They wrote:
We believe that communicators have to do something non-trivial
with the information they send and receive. And to interact with
the richness of living information — not merely in the passive
way that we have become accustomed to using books and
libraries, but as active participants in an ongoing process, bring-
ing 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 increasing signifi-
cance 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 emerge. We want to talk about the creative aspect of
communication.
3
Licklider and Taylor defined four principles for computers to make
a contribution toward human communication. They are:
Page 24
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 Net-
works,”
4
they explore the possible business applications 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 geographically distributed computer net-
work. Let us assume for a moment that such a network has been
formed. Through the network of message processors, therefore,
all the large computers can communicate with one another. And
through them, all the members of the super community can com-
municate — with other people, with programs, with data, or with
selected combinations of those resources.
5
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 quick-
ening 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
Page 25
formed immediately for either short or long-term use. As interests 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 Novem-
ber, 1989, and about German unification.)
The virtual space created on noncommercial computer networks is
accessible universally. The content on commercial networks, like Compu-
Serve or America OnLine, is only accessible by those who pay to belong
to that particular network. The space on noncommercial networks is ac-
cessible from the connections that exist, whereas social networks in the
physical world generally are connected by limited gateways. So the cap-
ability of networking in computer nets overcomes limitations inherent in
non-computer social networks. This is important because it reduces the
problems 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 people 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 networks facilitating connections of people
around the world.
My research on and about the Net was very exciting for me. When
Page 26
posting 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 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 individu-
als adds to the interests and specialties of the whole community. 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 become super im-
portant in the last couple of years because a critical mass of
membership was reached. I no longer work in LA, but in cyber-
space.
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 net-
works (e.g., ARPANET in the USA, the network of the National Physical
Laboratory in the United Kingdom, CYCLADES in France and other net-
works around the world) developed 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 communications backbone
for development of the latent social infrastructure we now call
‘THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.’
6
Page 27
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 con-
nected. 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 Community 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 community 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 continual 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 religions, 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 Information 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.
Page 28
All of this evidence is exactly why it is a problem for the Net to come
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 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 commercial en-
tities, becomes the gathering, discussion and planning center for many
people.
The combined efforts of people interested in communication have led
to the development and expansion 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 gophers, 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
Page 29
to contribute to the world now can. Also, these networks allow much more
open and public interaction over a much larger body of people than
available before. The common people have a unique voice — which is
now being aired in a new way.
The emphasis is that this new machine introduces 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 number 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 enormously in the dissemination
of information 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 distributing (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) be-
havior of the oil companies.
Page 30
A user from Germany also reported using the 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 company-name, and that he
simply ignored this person since he looked like a swindler. 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 RELCOM network could play or the connections
proved resilient enough for information about the coup to be communi-
cated inside and out of the country in time to inform the world and
encourage resistance to the coup.
7
The Net has also proven its value by providing an important medium
for students. Students participating 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 successful fight against plans by the French government to restrict
admission to government subsidized universities.
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 participation than what
is provided for by other forms of mass media. Television, radio, maga-
zines 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 information.
Page 31
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
technology developments, latest rumors, major debates as to
whether Formula 1 or Indy cars are better, etc.
The Net helps to make the information available 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 person to person around the world. Thus, German citizens
could learn about the Chernobyl explosion from the Net before the
government decided to release the information 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 allowed anyone to produce
mass quantities of documents. Personal publishing is now joined by wide
personal distribution.
Not only is there grassroots reporting, but the assumption that filtering
is necessary has been challenged. 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 accurate information. Or rather, you do if you
Page 32
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
Democracy Movement once said, “The worldwide democratic 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 communica-
tions 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
Digital in Galway, compiles a newspaper on the weeks events in
Ireland and so I can now easily keep abreast of most develop-
ments 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.indian, 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 communica-
tions 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 Washington and are coordinating
our plans and travel with a large number of other folks around
Page 33
the country via e-mail and conversations on Usenet.
From Jann VanOver:
I’m a member of a Buddhist organization 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
communication. Almost every aspect of interpersonal communi-
cation on the network has a gay/lesbian/bi aspect to it that forms
a tight and intimate acquaintanceship which sometimes even
boils over into arguments and enmities. This network of con-
nections, friends, enemies, lovers, etc. facilitates political goals
that would not otherwise be possible (organizing letter-writing
campaigns 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 people 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 linking thousands into a
virtual intellectual coffee-house, where strangers can connect
without the formalities of face-to-face rituals (hello, how are you
Page 34
today) to allow a direct-connect style of communication that
seems to transcend the ‘how’s the weather’ kind of conversation
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 unfriendly 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 some-
body 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 Netizen 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
Page 35
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 exchanging mail with people from Yellowknife,
Yukon, I had a real strange feeling: getting messages and chat-
ting 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. Writ-
ing 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. Telecom-
munications opened the world to me and changed my visions of
people and countries.
From Anthony Berno:
I could not begin to tell you how different 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:
More things to look at. Increased perspective on life. The com-
puter network brings people closer together and permits them to
speak at will to a large audience. I recommend that the tele-
communications and computer industry make large-scale com-
puter networking accessible to the general public. It’s like
making places accessible to the handicapped. People brought
closer together will release some existing social tensions. People
Page 36
need to be heard, and they need to hear.
From Paul Ready:
You don’t have to go to another country 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 different 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 collaborations 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 redistributed 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,
Page 37
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 discovery 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 profoundly.
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.
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 looking 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
certainly 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:
Page 38
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 before spending money on
them. In addition, 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 people who do want them, whether they live down the road
from me in Maryland, or in Canada, Austria, Finland, Germany
or Israel. I have also taken an Esperanto course via e-mail, and
correspond 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 materially 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 enriched 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 information in these forums.
THE NET AS A SOURCE OF ENORMOUS RESOURCES
Page 39
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 information
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 opinion. 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 America 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 idea
where anyone knowing the answer might be. I had drawn a blank
in Oxford. [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
resource. Flame wars aside, a lot of generally inaccessible
information is readily available.
From Lee Rothstein:
Usenet and mailing lists create a group of people who are
motivated and capable 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,
Page 40
each user realizes that the other that he talks to or will talk to
generally 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 produce a CD — without mastering, etc. I ex-
hausted all my print resources so I posted the question in a busi-
ness newsgroup. 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 information.
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 accounts 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 studied 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 occasions 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.
Page 41
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 contained in a message that most, if not all, communications can take
place entirely electronically. This medium allows for new forms of
collaborative work to form and thrive. New forms of research will prob-
ably 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 paper: ‘The
ARPAN TELNET Protocol: 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 collaborative paper, you ask?
Simply that the six of us never even made a TELEPHONE 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 conferencing 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 having 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 wherever)
Page 42
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 facilitates 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 attended 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 wandering
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 brows-
ing soc.culture .australia and I noticed a message from an
Australian composer studying in the U.S. about an alternative
tune to “Waltzing Matilda.” I was curious, so I responded in e-
Page 43
mail, requesting the tune and just sort of shooting the breeze. We
began an e-mail correspondence 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 proposed over the Internet (in soc.culture
.australia) and I accepted. Congratulatory messages came in from
all over the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Houston (that’s
his name) and I keep 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 living 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,
Page 44
when I find somebody who can THINK. People who can think
are hard to find anywhere.
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 computers, 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 programming hints, info on product releases, 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:
Page 45
I also have an old and dear friend (from high school) who lives
in the San Francisco 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 discovered we were both on
the net, we started corresponding via e-mail, and we now ex-
change 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 somehow we never
got around to doing those things. E-mail is quick, easy and fun
enough that we don’t put it off.
From Anthony Berno:
Incidentally, it is also one of my primary modes of communica-
tion 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 pervert”
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 contacted 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 newsgroup (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
Page 46
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 quickly 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 appreciate 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 technology 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 system. Those on
CompuServe are normally 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 communicating
Page 47
through this medium. For example, some time ago, I posted a
question to lots of different newsgroups, and many people felt
my question was inappropriate to their particular group. They
wrote to me and told me so, using amazingly nasty words. I
guess it’s 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 always claiming someone else
is ‘wasting 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.pictures.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 assembly 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 protected. 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 im-
proved via their connection 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
depend on high connectivity. In their article, “The Computer as a Com-
munication Device,” they argued that the impact upon society depends on
how available the network is to the society as a whole.
8
Society will improve if Net access is made available to people as a
Page 48
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 successor to it, then we as a society will
benefit in ways not currently understandable. When access to in-
formation is as ubiquitous as access to the phone system, 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 already fundamentally 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, 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 Inter-
operability 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.
Page 49
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
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 intersec-
Page 50
tion/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 “Communication” on the net different
than normal/before modes of communication? 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/re-
source/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 continued openness and/or growing
openness of letting the great body of people communicate accurate information that is
normally controlled 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 .folklore.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
Page 51
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?
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 participation 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 com-
munications. I would appreciate hearing about using any part of the net: Usenet
Page 52
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 disap-
pointments 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 unconsciously) 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.amateur-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 computer and communication
for college. So far I have asked and received many “serious” answers and replies dealing
Page 53
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 collaborative music/art/literary experi-
ments? How has the computer assisted 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 appreciate 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:
oric.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, communication 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
th
anniversary of its publication in Eng-
lish and Japanese editions in 1997. The book documents how along with
the development of the Internet came the emergence of a new form of
Page 54
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 contributions 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 participatory democracy.
Key Words: netizens, communications, empowerment, 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, how-
ever, 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 demonstrations 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
Page 55
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
th
anniversary since its publication in 1997, making a review of the
significant contribution of the book particularly relevant 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
th
Anniversary
of these publications.
In honor of this occasion, I want to both look back and forward
toward trying to assess the significance 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 sig-
nificant 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 develop-
ment 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 construc-
tive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help to
newcomers, who maintain FAQ files and other public informa-
tion repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These
are the people who discuss the nature and role of this new com-
munications 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
Page 56
and his co-author Ronda Hauben which were posted on the Net as they
were written and which sometimes led to substantial comments 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
st
Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen)
and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global con-
nectivity 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 computer
network. Virtually, you live next door to every other single
Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is replaced by
existence in the same virtual space.
1
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 con-
nected 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 privatization and
Page 57
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 formulated
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 conceptualization 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 peo-
ple’s uses of the global computer communications network, I
became aware that there was a new social institution, an elec-
tronic 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.
2
Hauben’s work, which is included in the book, and the subsequent
work he did, recognized the
advance made possible by the Internet and the emergence 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 emerging and recognized the promise for the future
Page 58
represented 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 com-
munity this new form of news.”
3
In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s work and of the publica-
tion 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 Infor-
mation 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 government, 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.”
4
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.”
5
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
Page 59
citizen.”
6
“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.”
7
In this situation, “the figure of the citizen is placed in a defensive
position.”
8
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 examine
those media that cross national boundaries and to inquire if they form or
may form the basis for a new set of political relations.”
9
In this context, for the new media, “the important 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?”
10
“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-
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
Page 60
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.”
11
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 democratiza-
tion.”
12
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 participa-
tion 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 possible for netizens to
speak out independently of institutions or officials.”
13
Kamat points to the growing number of netizens 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
th
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
Page 61
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.
14
But China is also a place where there are significant
developments because of the Internet and netizens.
15
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 development and participation represented in the Era of the
Netizen.
16
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 62
In a paper Licklider wrote with another psychologist, 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.”
17
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 modeling be developed in order to be able to create something
that many people will respect.
18
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.”
19
I want to focus a bit on the significance
of this characteristic, on the notion that the Net has opened a communica-
tion 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 preferable to look upon
government somewhat less as a problem of power and somewhat
more as a problem of steering; and it tries to show that steering
is decisively a matter of communication.
20
To look at the question of government not as a problem of power, but
as one of steering, of communication, 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
Page 63
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 information 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.
21
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 organization, 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?”
22
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 “informa-
tion has to be processed and discussed for it to acquire full meaning and
significance.”
23
“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.
24
In his article “The Computer as a Democratizer,” Hauben similarly
explores the need for accurate information about how the government is
functioning. He writes, “Without information being available 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
information available to people.”
25
Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate information as to how
their representatives are fulfilling their role. Once these representatives
Page 64
have abused their power, the principles established by [Thomas Paine] and
[James Mill] require that the public have the ability to replace the
abusers.”
26
Channels of accurate communication are critical in order to share the
information needed to determine the nature of one’s government.
27
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 cooperative 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
st
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 democratic society.
28
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 version,
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.indiatimes.com/edit-page/ampnbspWe-
are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017. The
Page 65
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 contributed 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 Journal-
ism,” The Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21, No. 1.
http://www.ais.org/~jrh /acn/ACn21-
1.pdf, Retrieved Jan. 10, 2017 and Hauben, J., (2007), “On the 15
th
Anniversary of
Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.” http://www.columbia.edu/~hau
ben/Book_Anniversary/presentation_2.doc, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.
22. Lee, Z. (2011), “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” 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
Page 66
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 Impact of Usenet and the
Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press. Online edition:
http://www
.columbia.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.col
umbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/Rise_of _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.india times.com/home
/opinion/edit-page/We-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/opinions/11133662.cms, Re-
trieved 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
th
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
Page 67
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 payments which the people
of Africa have to pay back despite the fact they never benefited from the
loans themselves.
1
In place of the “structural adjustment program” that brought the
people of Africa so much trouble, Mbock proposes a “democratic
adjustment program.”
2
“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.”
3
Will the situation improve,” Mbock asks, “if the future brings
‘netizenship’ to Africans?”
He writes:
4
Michael and Ronda Hauben are of the opinion that the Net and
the new communications technologies will encourage people to
shifting from citizenry to netizenry, away from ‘geographical
national definition of social membership to the new non-geo-
graphically 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 possible. You consider
everyone 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. Geography and time are no longer bound-
aries (…) A new, more democratic world is becoming possible
as a new grassroots connection that allows excluded sections of
Page 68
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 democratic 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 discussion and
debate of issues in a mode that facilitates mass participation.” (Hauben
and Hauben, 1997, p. 56)
“The outcome would be netdemocracy,” Mbock writes, “with a three-
pronged system of dialogue; 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 highway 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 citizenship to genuine ‘netizen-
ship’ is the worldwide innovation that social scientists should
herald, and not only for Africa. This implies looking beyond
national citizen passports, to negotiate global, ‘netizen’ ones.
5
Notes
1. Charly Gabriel Mbock, “Social Science and the Social Development Process in
Africa,” in Social Science and Innovation, OECD, 2001, p. 161. The whole book can be
read for free at:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Social_Sciences_and_Innova
Page 69
tion/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 commercialization 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 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.
(from Preface to Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Page 70
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 development 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, 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 INTERNET 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.
Page 71
Dedicated to Michael Hauben (1973-2001). Written to honor his memory and to continue
his contributions to make the world a better place.
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 neces-
sarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome
submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.
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
Page 72
