Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 28 2001 Volume 01 : Number 395 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) [netz] Standards--with a price tag - Tech News - CNET.com [netz] about need for government role in Internet's development [netz] View from Berlin and NYC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:41:03 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Dan Duris wrote: >don't tell me about polls... first 2 years of my studies at university >we had 2 classes on social behavioral and especially on opinion polls. >since then i haven't been believing in any polls, especially those >made by phone calls.[...] It's possible that your instructors weren't very good. Since you don't actually make an argument about phone polls, it's hard to know in what respects we may disagree. One simple fact about phone polls is that in American presidential elections (not the only domain, just the one I know best), they are generally quite accurate -- not quite as accurate as the statistical calculations warrant that they should be, but much more accurate than the guesswork that preceded them. The deeper question, I suppose, is whether polls can tell us anything useful about what people _think_... >average man (i don't like word average, but despite of that...) is >consuming-oriented man who feels good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot. ...and if one doesn't believe that people think enough for their thoughts to be worth investigating, then of course the answer will be "no." I suppose that's why I think this topic is of some interest on the Netizens list: it touches on deeper questions. >i don't have any prejudices against masses (ok, some), but this is >my experience of many people living here and there. if you don't >agree, tell me yours. Well, I think most people (at least in the U.S.) quickly conclude that it doesn't matter much what they think about politics, so there isn't any point in thinking much about politics. That said, there's a growing body of "deliberative research" into how people think about political issues. Some of it gathers small groups together for days at a time; some of it is short-term focus group research or even telephone polling that gives more context on a particular issue. Regardless of the method (but more so in the more intensive approaches), the participants tend to get excited that someone actually is paying attention to what they think -- and they think more. And, in my judgment, they tend to express fairly reasonable and decent views. What I'm saying doesn't directly contradict your statements, but I do seem to have a more optimistic perspective on what we can gain by asking people what they think. (Conventional survey polling is just one way of doing that, not really the best -- but when done at all well, it does often refute what pundits _say_ the public thinks, and I value it highly for that.) >what is important is this: >YOU think about polls and its results, also STEPHEN thinks about it >and me (sometimes), too. but forget about the man described above... OK, I'll grant you that most folks don't ponder the survey results they hear on the news. I'm not persuaded that they uncritically accept them, either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;) Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:22:24 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) ML> It's possible that your instructors weren't very good. My instructor was very good one. One of the best living in Slovakia. I haven't said I don't believe all of the phone surveys. I just don't accept those made by TVs, newspapers and radios. I don't know about US but phone call surveys here are the worst one. Statistics is very nice, but only when it's done in proper way. And many of those polls out there are not done in proper way. Again, I am telling you facts about Slovakia, it could be little bit better in US. ML> either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what ML> they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;) OK, this is very good argument. So, I can not do anything else than agree. dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- gouranga! -* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:51:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen K Truex Subject: Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Mark Lindeman wrote: > Dan Duris wrote: > > >don't tell me about polls... first 2 years of my studies at university > >we had 2 classes on social behavioral and especially on opinion polls. > >since then i haven't been believing in any polls, especially those > >made by phone calls.[...] > > It's possible that your instructors weren't very good. > > Since you don't actually make an argument about phone polls, it's hard to > know in what respects we may disagree. One simple fact about phone polls > is that in American presidential elections (not the only domain, just the > one I know best), they are generally quite accurate -- not quite as > accurate as the statistical calculations warrant that they should be, but > much more accurate than the guesswork that preceded them. > > The deeper question, I suppose, is whether polls can tell us anything > useful about what people _think_... YES... > > >average man (i don't like word average, but despite of that...) is > >consuming-oriented man who feels good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot. > > ...and if one doesn't believe that people think enough for their thoughts > to be worth investigating, then of course the answer will be "no." I > suppose that's why I think this topic is of some interest on the Netizens > list: it touches on deeper questions. > > >i don't have any prejudices against masses (ok, some), but this is > >my experience of many people living here and there. if you don't > >agree, tell me yours. > > Well, I think most people (at least in the U.S.) quickly conclude that it > doesn't matter much what they think about politics, so there isn't any > point in thinking much about politics. That said, there's a growing body > of "deliberative research" into how people think about political > issues. Some of it gathers small groups together for days at a time; some > of it is short-term focus group research or even telephone polling that > gives more context on a particular issue. Regardless of the method (but > more so in the more intensive approaches), the participants tend to get > excited that someone actually is paying attention to what they think -- and > they think more. And, in my judgment, they tend to express fairly > reasonable and decent views. I think that one good measure of Political Apathy (I almost said Atrophy) is the low Voting turnout in the Presidential Election. Anyone know the percentage from last year? I think it was something close to 70% and that was really high. The one before that it is wasn't even 50%... > > What I'm saying doesn't directly contradict your statements, but I do seem > to have a more optimistic perspective on what we can gain by asking people > what they think. (Conventional survey polling is just one way of doing > that, not really the best -- but when done at all well, it does often > refute what pundits _say_ the public thinks, and I value it highly for that.) > > >what is important is this: > >YOU think about polls and its results, also STEPHEN thinks about it > >and me (sometimes), too. but forget about the man described above... > > OK, I'll grant you that most folks don't ponder the survey results they > hear on the news. I'm not persuaded that they uncritically accept them, > either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what > they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;) I liked dan's description: "...average man (i don't like word average, but despite of that...) is consuming-oriented man who feels good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot. better for him than to think is to come from work home, to sit in front of this dull, empty box called tv, to watch it for a while, to eat some chips, to drink some cheap wine (or beer...and then to go to bed and to sleep." it IS pretty harsh. this is a description of the proverbial "couch potato." Homer Simspon. Al Bundy. Archie Bunker. no doubt these people exist. myself coming from a lower middle-class family and watching way too much TV as a kid, I can attest to a certain frightening similarity between sitcom stereotypes and real people.... I wonder: would Homer, Al, or Archie vote in a Presidential Election? Would they try and shoot or run over Arab/Muslim people? another Statistic we can employ in identifying the Majority is the number of people who watch Television; how much they watch it; what they watch. If anything, the real litmus test of Mass Psychology is the Nielsen Ratings. This presumes that we believe them of course...but the Media Empires do love to quote their Millions of devout Viewers. well, to bring this conversation around to what it might have to do with Netizens... Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political reality... - -steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:47:36 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) Dan and Steve, >ML> It's possible that your instructors weren't very good. >DD> My instructor was very good one. One of the best living in Slovakia. Sorry, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Actually, it's possible that we mean different things by "phone surveys." Some stations and papers in the U.S. offer voluntary call-in "surveys" that are just as useless as the Internet polls.... >DD> I haven't said I don't believe all of the phone surveys. I just don't >accept those made by TVs, newspapers and radios. I don't know about US >but phone call surveys here are the worst one. OK. It's always reasonable to start skeptical until convinced otherwise. Maybe things _are_ somewhat better in the U.S. Several U.S. papers -- particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times -- sponsor random-digit-dialing telephone surveys that are generally at a pretty high level of quality. Not perfect, but far from useless. (I don't mean to belabor this point; just trying to clear up where we may agree and disagree.) >ST> I think that one good measure of Political Apathy (I almost said Atrophy) >is the low Voting turnout in the Presidential Election. Steve, turnout in the U.S. is much lower than turnout in many other democracies, but this doesn't correlate with greater apathy in the U.S., based on straightforward measures of apathy. (I'm not saying that there _isn't_ apathy in the U.S.: obviously there is -- and also in other democracies.) As far as we can tell, it has to do with different registration laws, the "winner-take-all" structure of most U.S. elections, and something fuzzily called "party mobilization." To put it another way, I don't really hold it against people who don't vote in presidential elections. Some of them just figured out that their votes won't determine the outcome, so what's the point? (I don't mean to take us off on a tangent about whether it is a Good Thing to vote, only to suggest that it really is a tangent.) >ST> I wonder: would Homer, Al, or Archie vote in a Presidential Election? >Would they try and shoot or run over Arab/Muslim people? There are a lot of couch potatoes, no doubt about it. (Couch potatoes don't try to kill people: too much work. I bet Archie voted in every election, but I have my doubts about Homer.) >ST> Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political >reality... OK, seems like a reasonable topic, although a lot of mass media crit strikes me as not so far from "Thank God _I_ don't like Survivor!" (or even "Thank God at least I have the intellect to be ironic about liking Survivor!"). [Incidentally, I have never watched Survivor; I haven't consciously tried to avoid it, but I don't watch much TV these days.] That said, it's certainly sensible to wonder, to give just one example, how Americans are being influenced by what they're seeing/hearing about the 9/11 attacks etc. Maybe we could revisit the question of what use most people make of the Internet (those, that is, who use it at all), and what it means. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:26:23 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...) SKT> much TV as a kid, I can attest to a certain frightening similarity SKT> between sitcom stereotypes and real people.... i thought these people have never existed. but you told us otherwise, so i am rather much confused. but i understand there has to be some example of real life. they couldn't based it on clear fiction. SKT> If anything, the real litmus test of Mass Psychology is the Nielsen SKT> Ratings. This presumes that we believe them of course...but the Media hm, i had social psychology, too. but as it was 3 years ago, could you please clarify what the "Nielsen Rating" is? SKT> well, to bring this conversation around to what it might have to do with SKT> Netizens... i just wanted to point out that there are still many people out there who are passive receivers of flow of information. internet can change this and is changing it slowly. SKT> Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political SKT> reality... i can tell you this: in 1998 there were general election in slovakia. between about 20 parties there was also this SOP (party of civic understanding). SOP was created and raised up for some particular wannabe legislators. TV markiza (only commercial tv in slovak rep. then) created and supported this party. in surveys SOP scored about 15%. of course this was only bubble. SOP gained only 7% in general election. nonetheless, this was quite a success. SOP was founded only in january 1998 and election were in september same year. BTW: voting turnout for 1998 election was 84 point something percents... not-for-profit civic associations did very good job (and i am glad i was part of it :) ) half a year ago owner and former general director of TV markiza decided to create new party as SOP was loosing popularity. of course, this time he decided to be leader of this new party called ANO (which is equivalent of YES) and is acronym for Alliance of New Citizen. and now, this is what i call good example of manipulation. can you see those banners, billboards, tv shots? vote for YES!, new faces in politics? YES! etc... of course, they don't have any new faces and those supposed new faces are old communists or ex-communists, what makes no difference. p.s. maybe i look little bit pessimistic, but i am definitely not. just tired of this wannabe politics in post-communist countries. sometimes i wish to live somewhere else. preferably in some well-going democracy :) who wouldn't love to? ok, i am going to sleep, because it's 2:14 am and tommorow (or today) i have to go to school. bye, dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- why r u reading this? -* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Greg Skinner Subject: [netz] Standards--with a price tag - Tech News - CNET.com http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1272-210-7420188-1.html?tag=bt_bh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:07:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: [netz] about need for government role in Internet's development Following was an interesting post on a list I am on about the need for a government role in Internet development and security matters: The post begins to raise the important issue of what is the needed role for government and for binding government agreements to support the Internet. Ronda there is also an interesting comment about ICANN's plan to take on security at its upcoming meeting and the problems with them doing that. >Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:01:37 -0400 >To: David Farber >From: Charles Brownstein >Subject: Re: IP: John Gilmore on ICANN, Net-stability, and response to > terrorism > >(Speaking or myself) I am all for international comity and having as >little governmental oversight of the net as possible. Yet I think there >are national security concerns - in the sense of infrastructure >reliability- eg., rather than the spooky stuff- that the US cannot afford >to abandon given the impact of the net on our economy- and which other >nations ought review as well. > >I believe we need to think of the Internet in the same way that we should >think about local mechanisms of commerce: roads, waterways, airways, >spectrum, etc. >That is: >- the voluntary private sector has a role not an absolute right, given the >common good and the appropriate motivations and limits of private >interests in these arenas; >- governments (especially democracies as legitimate agents of the >citizens) have a particular fiduciary role and responsibility; >- international responsibilities need to be formal with agreements binding >on nations; >- agreements need to strong and made under official umbrellas (we need to >formalize the US policy umbrella and encourage other nations to do the same). > >Internet infrastructure reliability needs quite independent of special >interests and intractable issues in intellectual trademark and name >services. There is ample history of legal and appropriate cooperation >among entities in this layer that evidence the broader interests of the >Internet. There are outstanding motivations, directly among the private >and public entities involved, to achieve results for reliability and >national security requirements. > >ICANN is (perhaps appropriately) distant from the owners and operators of >the physical Internet infrastructure where security can be achieved-- eg., >in the network layers. It has more than enough to deal with in the >difficult area of the Internet that it was chartered to address- and on >which its performance will surely determine its continue existence. >-- > > >Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] View from Berlin and NYC Dear fellow and sister netizens: I hope that you all would not mind getting my view as perhaps it differs somewhat from some others you have been seeing. It is out of the debate of different views that each of us can make up our own minds where we stand and what we want to do to contribute to solving the deep problems, the great crime and horrendous acts of September 11 have visited upon us. Ronda Hauben had a paper accepted at a conference in Germany and we went in the hopes it would help our healing a bit. We are now home from 10 days in Berlin. The conference was surprisingly valuable. It was a German government conference called by the German equivalent of the US Office of Technology Assessment. Invited were academics from all over the world to speak broadly on the social impact of new technologies. It was refreshing to be among people who took up the topic which had partially been the focus of Ronda and Michael's Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. We were shown respect for our role and meet some interesting people. Everyone without exception with whom we spoke in Germany (= about 30 people from all over Europe) thought the bombing and war action of the US government was dangerous and could only make trouble throughout the world. They were also concerned that free speech in the US would be muzzled. Also, we heard that 100,000 people in Berlin and Leipzig demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan on Oct 13. It is not just Europeans who are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Many people I talked with since I have come back to NYC throw up their hands and say this war can do no good. Some say that the war must be for other reasons than to increase the security of the American people. This weekend it was reported that there were anti war or peace demonstrations in 59 US cities. Ronda and I are still a bit jet lagged but I think the trip has done Ronda and me some good. We seem a bit less pessimistic. When we were saddened by the new scares and war efforts, one German woman told us she was sure that there will be a world wide anti-war movement and that there will be plenty of courageous people in the US who will be part of it. So that this war will lead to a greater internationalism among good people everywhere. Her hope sought of gave us a little push to remember our own trust that no matter what the situation, resistance is always going to emerge. The question that needs to be answered which is not answered by the war or by the anti-war movement is what can and must be done to make people all over the world and in the US more secure and safe and prosperous? My sense is the answer will be that we all must be better citizens of our countries and better netizens of the world. Anyway we are trying to be upbeat a bit more than we were able before the trip. We still need all the help we can get. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #395 ******************************