[3]           Netizenship Today: An Interview
       by Daniela A Baszkiewicz-Scott dab1@columbia.edu
           Responses by Ronda Hauben ronda@ais.org

Question #1:  Five years ago, you and Michael published Netizens,
a study of the history and prospects of communication on the
Internet, specifically through the most common and popular medium
of Usenet. The book added a new coinage to the English language
and implied a particular vision of where the net could carry us. 
What was that vision then, and has your sense of it changed at
all over the past decade, and if so, how?

Answer #1:  While Netizens was indeed published in a hard copy
version in 1997, it was first put on line almost 10 years ago, in
1994. In 1992/1993, Michael did his research and posted the
summary in his article "The Net and the Netizen." So actually
Michael's work discovering net.citizens and then formulating the
concept of netizen, is 10 years ago this year. What Michael's
research taught him, was that there were people online who
functioned as citizens of the Internet and Usenet. These were
people who participated in making the Internet something valuable
to people around the world. Among those who recognized the
importance of the Internet as a new communication medium, there
was the special concern to make low cost or free access available
to all people who wanted to be online. These were some of the
characteristics that Michael recognized of users who were acting
as "netizens", or as citizens of a broader entity than a national
geographic entity. Michael's vision of the potential of the
Internet, and the vision of a number of the users who wrote him,
was of an online medium that would make it possible for people to
be able to participate in the decisions that affected their
lives. Michael wrote about this in his article "What the Net
means to me" (See ACN Vol. 11 No. 1.
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/text/acn11-1.articles/acn11-1.a13.txt)

What has happened in these 10 years?
	
There are others who are "netizens" in the finest tradition. 
They are continuing to uphold this vision and to help it to
become a reality.

The Internet is going through difficult times in terms of its
promise as a participatory global communication system available
to all who want access. The conception of the netizen, however,
is very much alive and is helpful in supporting those who
continue to work toward this goal. Searching online in a search
engine under netizens turns up almost 100,000 entries. Michael
noted that the netizen was someone who acted as a citizen of the
Internet. He also observed that there was another usage that
developed after he popularized the term. This second usage refers
to any net user as a netizen. There are dictionaries that
recognize this distinction, for example, the Oxford English
Dictionary. It defines a netizen as a participant in the online
community. Other sources like the Glossary of Internet Terms
describes a netizen as: "Derived from the term citizen, referring
to a citizen of the Internet, or someone who uses networked
resources. The term connotes civic responsibility and
participation." (http://www.matisse.net/files/glossary.html#N)

Still others like the Polish researcher Lesiek Jesien examine the
essence of the citizen as the ability to participate in the
processes of governance. The netizen provides Jesien a model to
be investigated. (See for example "The 1996 IGC: European
Citizenship Reconsidered", "Instituets fur den Donauraum und
Mitteleuropa", March 1997, page 2.)

Michael spoke about the importance of everyone being able to be
online, as part of the vision of the netizen. Also, he noted the
need for people to have the time in their lives to be able to
participate in the affairs of the Internet's development. How
this can happen, only the future will tell. A possible model
exists in the U.S. This is the process set up for citizens to
have time in their lives to serve on juries. When citizens are
called for jury duty, they are paid by their employer or given
some reimbursement by government for the day. This is a model to
consider when looking at what will be needed for netizens to be
able to participate actively in the Internet's development.

In these past 10 years, the concept of netizen has been embraced
by many people around the world. In our book Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet Michael wrote
several chapters looking at various developments. One chapter is
chapter 13, about the press, another is chapter 14 about the U.S.
government policy advisory online conference held in 1994. In his
article on the development of the press, Michael noted that the
netizen as a citizen reporter will greatly enrich the news that
is available to the public. (See "The Effect of the Net on the
Professional News Media: The Usenet News Collective and
Man-Computer News Symbiosis")

While Michael documents instances of this in his chapter on the
press, there continue to be many other instances. More recently,
for example, on February 8, 2003, the New York Times News of the
Week in Review section printed a transcript of an online
discussion of people monitoring the reentry of the Columbia
shuttle back into the earth's atmosphere. They document their
observations of its breakup as it entered the earth's atmosphere.

What progress has these 10 years brought for the Internet as a
participatory communication medium? Many people around the world
try to utilize the Internet to influence their governments on a
wide range of issues from local housing concerns to broader
efforts to prevent or stop war. The concept and vision of the
netizen is developing broadly and widely, though it is not always
visible. There are, however, rare times, like the February 15,
2003 anti-war demonstrations around the world, which were
possible because they could be coordinated and supported by
citizens utilizing the Internet. Citizens could work together to
communicate with each other and their government to oppose a war
being waged against the people of Iraq.

The vision that Michael documented was of the Internet as a
platform for democracy, or as a laboratory for democracy. The
Internet provides the medium needed, and the netizens are the
researchers who explore how this medium can be helpful. I was
invited to a seminar in Finland in December 1999. This seminar
was part of a European Union sponsored conference exploring the
ability of citizens to influence the decisions made by their
governments. There was general dismay at the conference about the
inability of most citizens to have an impact on government
decisions. The seminar I participated in explored whether the
Internet could make such participation possible. A journalism
researcher from Finland told of the frustrations of Finnish
citizens in trying to get their local government representatives
to listen to their views. She proposed that it was important for
citizens to document their efforts to influence their
representatives before they could expect to succeed. Her research
was part of a process of exploring the barriers for citizens to
achieve this goal. To have such research ongoing and presented at
a conference was an important advance. Also a government official
at the seminar responded that after representatives are elected
they feel it is appropriate to act according to their own
judgement. They are not required to listen to their constituents.

The EU Conference was held on December 2, 1999, just days after
the protests in Seattle (in November 1999) in opposition to the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Some of those attending the
European Union (EU) conference in Finland had come from Seattle. 
They were excited by the breathe and diversity of those
protesting in Seattle.

Michael's research, done over 10 years ago this year, has set a
basis for continuing research on the impact of the Internet, not
only on its own development, but also on the development of the
larger society.

It will be good to see this research continued and enriched.

Question #2:  Certainly, one of the things that has changed has
been the makeup of the populace of the Internet. Alongside the
old elites and normal, peaceful people, a vaster public of less
clear ideals and commitments, even including a significant number
of hooligans and sociopaths, has appeared. With such a public,
can one still dream of a magical civil society for which the net
will be the "carrier" of democracy?

Answer #2:  This is an interesting question as it assumes that
all those who participated in the early development of the
Internet were "elites". This is not accurate. From the early
development of the Internet and Usenet there were people who
explored how to support collaborative activities and
communication versus those who wanted the Internet and Usenet to
serve their narrower purposes. Also, contrary to all the myths of
the Internet developing apart from government and government
regulation, the Internet was nourished by the early forms of
government regulation that functioned to protect it. The Internet
was born as a government project under the leadership of the
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), an office within
government. Through much of its 30 year development, there was an
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that specified that the use of the
system should be one with public purposes and forbid self serving
purposes. Similarly, Usenet had a mechanism for system
administrators to hold users responsible for following certain
standards of behavior. Those users who violated these standards
were limited or deprived of access to Usenet.

The current period is not the first time that there are users who
abuse the Internet and other users. Governments like that of the
U.S., however, have ceased to provide citizens and netizens with
protection from those who are abusive.

There are counter efforts ongoing as well, however. How this will
develop, time will show. But there is much to learn from the
early development of the Internet and the role played by
government and online administrators to encourage constructive
activity by users.

Question #3:  There would seem to be other potential challenges
to direct democracy and human rights today, but there is one of
particular relevance to the net and to Europe, which has been a
subject of particular interest to you in your recent study of the
internet, namely, that of language barriers. These barriers
appear capable of dividing united and still uniting Europe into a
society of e-aristocrats and e-outcasts, since, through no fault
of their own, some peoples were long cut off from the language
which is now emerging as the universal e-language: English. Can
an individual learning English as a new language, or for whom
English is a "distant second" language have the opportunity of
truly free expression, at the same time as the European Union
becomes a single society with a common bureaucracy, officialdom,
and system of government which will need to be controlled by its
citizens?

Answer #3:  This question has two parts.

The first refers to the development of English as a standard
language online. There are, indeed, many people around the world
who use the Internet, but who don't speak or write English. 
English is clearly not a common language at present, though it is
used sometimes to try to make communication possible among those
with different languages.

A common language allows people from different countries to
communicate. However, this is a burden on those who don't know
this language.

Rather than a common language, there are translation programs
online. One can put text into these programs and learn some of
what is being said in different languages. While these programs
are still primitive they are being used by people to communicate
with others who speak different languages. Also there are certain
words that have developed as part of the Internet's development,
like the word netizen, which are being adopted as a common
vocabulary in countries around the world.

These are merely beginning steps toward trying to make
communication possible among people who have different native
languages. On Usenet and the Internet, there are posts, mailing
lists, web sites, and Usenet newsgroups in many languages. This
makes it possible for people to participate in the languages that
are their own first languages, the languages they are most
comfortable in.

The Internet is not only helping to spread the means for people
to communicate with those who speak other languages, but it is
also beginning to create some common terms used online. Most
importantly, however, it is spreading the desire for and the
possibility of communication among people who speak many
different languages.

The problem of making communication possible among people who
speak different languages is a very real problem. It will take
the efforts of many people to solve it. The Internet and netizens
are contributing to the effort to explore and solve this
challenge.

The second part of the question is about how citizens will be
able to control governing institutions like the European Union. 
This is a broader question which I will respond to as part of the
promise of e-democracy which you ask about in question 5.

Question #4:  Another significant brake on e-democracy would
appear to be the uneven system treatment of freedom of expression
in different countries. In the United States and, more recently,
Great Britain, a set of civil liberties are in force, in which a
particular emphasis is placed on freedom of speech. However, in
many countries of Western Europe and Central Europe (now seeking
membership in a united Europe) a person can go to jail for
opinions about a politician expressed on the net, since harming
the "good name" of the politician is punished by the criminal
code. In Poland, for example, "slandering" a politician is
addressed not by the civil courts, but by the prosecutor paid by
the taxpayers. In this way, free exercise electronic media can be
treated as an instrument of crime. What are your thoughts about
this problem?

Answer #4:  Will the internet and netizens be able to help
netizens in Poland fight these restrictions? This is a question
to be explored. This is needed for the further development of the
Internet in general, and in Poland, in particular.

Both the origins of the Internet and its continued development
require the ability to freely discuss diverse views via a
grassroots connection of people. Michael documented this in
chapter 2, and 7 of Netizens. The U.S. government was trying to
outlaw the freedom to express one's views on the Internet when
the U.S. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, (CDA) in
1995-1996. There was much protest online and offline against the
law. This pressure was helpful in setting a basis for the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court when they voted that the CDA
was unconstitutional in the Summer of 1996.

Those online, whether in the countries of East and Central
Europe, or in the countries around the world, value the Internet
and the ability to explore diverse viewpoints online.

It is a serious problem that in Poland a person can be tried for
their criticism of a politician. I would hope a way could be
found to have an online campaign against such laws as they not
only harm people in the present, but they will make it more
difficult in the future to develop both the technology and the
social environment for the technology and the people to flourish.

Perhaps the ability to publicize such problems via the Internet
will make it possible to change such laws, like the experience of
the online community in overturning the CDA.

Question #5:  Do you expect the United States, as a country which
at least has the right of the citizen to free expression included
in its constitution, to move more quickly toward e-democracy than
other parts of the world as a result of technological progress,
or do you see barriers blocking a movement toward e-democracy
here as well? To put it differently, what conditions must be
realized for society to move toward the model of e-democracy that
has been sketched out at various international gatherings
recently devoted to this subject?

Answer #5:  There are a variety of e-democracy models, from
putting government administrative functions and services on the
Internet to cheapen the cost of government, to encouraging
citizens to discuss problems from a broad diversity of viewpoints
in order to find the means to solve them. Examples of the latter
are included in the chapters in Netizens on the online processes
to involve citizens in policy discussions. (See chapters 11 and
14)

The 1999 European Union conference in Finland raised the question
of how citizens could have more say in the decisions of their
governments. The researchers and other participants in one
seminar descried how citizens in many countries around the world
faced this problem. The U.S. is no exception. Despite the
constitutional right to protest government activity in the U.S.,
the city and federal government refused to allow a march in New
York City on February 15, 2003 to protest war against Iraq. 
Also the police prevented massive numbers of people trying to
attend the legally sanctioned rally from being able to get to the
rally.

What conditions are needed to make e-democracy a reality? 
People need low cost or free access to the Internet. They need
enough leisure time or paid work time to participate in forums on
public questions. For example, in the U.S. citizens are paid by
their employers to participate in jury activity. A similar
process is needed for citizens to have the time and income to be
able to participate more broadly in public affairs.

Another condition is the need to have this participation affect
the decisions made by government officials. If there is no sign
that citizens' efforts have any effect, then it appears fruitless
to make the effort.

In a paper "The 1996 IGC: European Citizenship Reconsidered"
published in March 1997, Lesiek Jesien explored the views of a
number of political theorists to determine what is essential for
citizenship. His conclusion is that the ability of citizens to
participate is critical. Comparing the development of netizenship
on the Internet and citizenship, Jesien writes (Jesien, 15):
"Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of
citizenship is evolving.... But using the Internet today is a
sign of belonging to the elite, to those who exchange ideas, who
participate in something important, in a common cause. There is
no question of governance there, nor the question of
representation, but there is a full, ultimate and direct
participation.... At the time the European Union struggles to
shape the European citizenship with much effort and little
success, the other citizenship Netizenship emerges. The IGC
negotiators and European political leaders should perhaps look at
this phenomenon with sympathy and attention."

The ability of netizens to participate in the activities of the
Internet is a fruitful model for the future of citizenship around
the world. The "netizen" online is the networking citizen who
accepts the obligation to contribute to the Internet's
development and to the direction of its future growth. The
Internet functions as a laboratory of democracy. It has done this
best, however, when there have been prohibitions against the
abuse of online processes, like the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
that helped to support constructive activity online from
1985-1995. There is a continuing need to learn how to support and
protect the online user and the netizen, to make it possible to
realize the potential for e-democracy that the Internet provides.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 11 No 2, May 1, 2003.
The whole issue or a subscription is available for free via email.
Send a request to jrh@ais.org  or see  http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
----------------------------------------------------------------------