Netizens-Digest Friday, February 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 420 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:24:37 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements > From: Yvonne Liu http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627 - -- .......................................................................... yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo .......................................................................... And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China, India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese) can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military dictatorship of the world. - -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:46:11 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements > > From: Yvonne Liu > >http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627 > > >-- > >.......................................................................... >yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo >.......................................................................... > >And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass >diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel, >South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China, >India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese) >can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of >course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the >growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people >of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military dictatorship of the world. -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I >Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002) As a practicing Wiccan, I suggest that unless one is referring to things that might be observed by going skyclad, I know of no covens in which Bush would feel comfortable. More seriously, many maiing lists and USENET have long had a netiquette convention that when the signature length exceeds the content length, the posting is rejected. Frankly, I find pointers to articles, as sole content, to have little information content. If one wants to discuss the merits of the article on this list and refer to the specifics, fine. While the article does raise some interesting points, it leaps from point to point in a manner that really needed an editor. I look at it and fail to see its point. It's perfectly feasible to have a network-based discussion with proprietary software, with public domain software whose source is available - NOT necessarily the same as "open source", or with open source software. I would suggest that the sort of broad-based radical organization described in the article is obsolete in a network-centric information society, which lets me focus my protest. Hypothetically, I might be a totalitarian opposed to racism or a racist libertarian, and would not be at home in the cited "ANSWER". To quote a well-known activist, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem (although as a one-time chemist, I prefer if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate). Frankly, I find the paragraph taken from the cited article: The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new, network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical, processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and explosive growth. to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party platform. Any child can throw a tantrum. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:30:55 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > From: Yvonne Liu > > > >http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627 > > > > The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global > demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The > European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade > unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other > activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new, > network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but > which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political > discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical, > processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of > large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and > thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary > communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and > explosive growth. > > to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of > what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party > platform. Any child can throw a tantrum. > > Interesting. What the demonstrations around the world on February 15 showed was that there is great discontent around the world with the kind of policies that are being carried out in favor of making war against Iraq and in other areas of life. Maybe, the most glaring demand of the demonstrators is that they don't there to be a war against the civilian population of Iraq and they don't want all this discussion about war in their countries. Many of the signs at the rally that a lot of people couldn't get to in NYC were signs about wanting health care for everyone, and other social programs. Also it seems many people want some way of being taken seriously by those in their government/s. So that the governments don't ignore the desires of the citizens, so that they don't see them as the equivalent of a "focus group" would be used by businesses. People are the citizens. Their government/s should be interested in their needs and desires and trying to find ways to implement what would be of benefit to the whole population. Instead George Bush said that he doesn't make policy by what focus groups say. There are means of communication now that make it possible for government officials to communicate with their citizens and hear what they say. More importantly there are ways for citizens to discuss the affairs of the society and to therefore find ways to determine what would be worthwhile as goals, and then to monitor what happens with the efforts to implement these goals. It seems that the current government leaders in most countries around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how these new means of communication like the Internet could be helpful in having more effective government and more democratic government. It is ironic that George Bush should talk about how he will bring democracy to the middle east region when he shows by the way he treats people in the US that he has contempt for democracy. However, with the new means of communication people can talk over their reactions and share them and try to find a way to make them have some impact. In a conference at MIT in 1961 about the future of computers, C.P.Snow from Britain gave a talk about scientists and decision making. He said that if people talk broadly about an issue than that issue has a way to filter up to the people who make the decisions in a country. He gave as an example the way the desire of people in England after WWII for national health care and the way it became the law. It was an interesting theory he proposed. And even more interesting is the fact that these means of communication like the Internet make such discussion possible in broadranging ways. The question is, can this change what is happening among those who make the decisions in our world. That is the challenge. With best wishes Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:59:58 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements >On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> > > From: Yvonne Liu >> > >> >http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627 >> > >> >> The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global >> demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The >> European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade >> unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other >> activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new, >> network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but >> which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political >> discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical, >> processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of >> large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and >> thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary >> communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and >> explosive growth. >> >> to be incomprehensibly vague. Tell me what you propose instead of >> what you're protesting--this is specific as any political party >> platform. Any child can throw a tantrum. >> >> >Interesting. What the demonstrations around the world on February 15 >showed was that there is great discontent around the world with >the kind of policies that are being carried out in favor of making >war against Iraq and in other areas of life. But what has this to do with netizenship? Let me elaborate, first saying something that is probably generally acceptable, and then something that may be less politically correct. To me,. netizenship involves the process of empowering communications among all the actors involved in society -- be they individuals, issue groups, governments, communes, or corporations. For this communication to be real, it means that the same communications need to be open to someone whose ideal would be the eradication of the Iraqi people as to someone whose ideal would be immediate reparations to them. I am vehemently opposed to the ideas of Holocaust deniers, but I want that them to be out in the sunlight of discourse rather than simply forcing them under their rocks. Governments that ban hate speech, ban revisionist historians of all flavors, etc., on the Internet, even for the best of reasons, are not serving people enabled by communication. "Hacktivists," or the US Justice Department, acting to shut down websites, flood mailing lists, etc., interfering with expression, is not Netizenship. A consequence of that is that both commercial spamming and "hacktivism" are both antithetical to Netizenship, because they aggressively drain resources and interfere with consensual communication. > [snip comments about specific issues and positions about which demonstrators were making "demands"] I cannot accept that to have a specific set of demands about anything other than the communicative process, and to a a certain extent (see below) the social contract between those who govern and those who are governed, is a criterion for good Netizenship. > >Also it seems many people want some way of being taken seriously >by those in their government/s. So that the governments don't >ignore the desires of the citizens, so that they don't see them >as the equivalent of a "focus group" would be used by businesses. "Desires of citizens." Of how many citizens? Or should the loudest voice be the most important? Again specifying that the communication MUST be independent of ideology, what decision-making process are we discussing here? If it's pure democracy, we need a trusted method of counting votes. Even ignoring modern communications, I think it's reasonably established in political science that activists at either end of a spectrum form a numeric minority. In particular, I'm thinking of civil wars, of revolutionary movements. In Viet Nam, for example, the majority of the peasantry simply wanted to be left alone and continue a strong village and family tradition. If we are speaking of republican democracy, then it's valid that citizens can feel their concerns are being heard by their representatives -- but it's not valid, without an election (even for referendum or recall), or parliamentary loss of confidence, that "demands" require instant gratification. Like it or not, a representative has to answer first to their own conscience. There is a long history of representatives NOT being responsive to the popular whim, and having their wisdom validated by history. > >People are the citizens. Their government/s should be interested >in their needs and desires and trying to find ways to implement >what would be of benefit to the whole population. Do you seriously expect that ANYTHING will ever be of benefit to the ENTIRE population? Politics and any realistic decisionmaking process involve the art of balancing different beliefs, different priorities, and resource and legal constraints. I find the phrase "the people" as an actor in a SPECIFIC process, be that the traditional American indictment "the People versus John Smith," or the classic "People's Courts" in totalitarian societies, to be a rather silly concept. The phrase "the people" as a diverse set of inputs to a balancing process is a very real and valued idea. > >[snip comment about what George Bush does or doesn't do. Netizenship is available to people of all persuasions, or it isn't netizenship. Again: classic individual democracy protects against rule of a minority. Representative democracy,. especially with checks and balances in the system, protects against the tyranny of a temporary majority. It may also come up with a least-of-several-evils solution. Incidentally, while "consensus" rather than voting is beloved of activist groups, there's abundant social science data showing that in the absence of additional constraints, there often is tyranny by the most charismatic or most articulate. This is even true when obtaining expert opinion from a panel, and the motivation for developing such methods as Delphi surveys to be sure that all opinions are presented and considered. I've participated in a number of Delphi studies, and, while I have found them intensely irritating at times, am impressed how much information they elicit. The collaborative-work specialists that developed Delphi may have even better paradigms, but the idea of being sure you are getting the right information is one of those things I _do_ consider extremely relevant to Netizenship. > >There are means of communication now that make it possible for >government officials to communicate with their citizens and >hear what they say. > >More importantly there are ways for citizens to discuss the >affairs of the society and to therefore find ways to determine >what would be worthwhile as goals, and then to monitor >what happens with the efforts to implement these goals. I applaud this. But there is a difference between communicating and demanding. > >It seems that the current government leaders in most countries >around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how >these new means of communication like the Internet could be >helpful in having more effective government and more democratic >government. > [again a complaint about George Bush] > >However, with the new means of communication people can talk >over their reactions and share them and try to find a way >to make them have some impact. > >In a conference at MIT in 1961 about the future of computers, >C.P.Snow from Britain gave a talk about scientists and decision >making. He said that if people talk broadly about an issue >than that issue has a way to filter up to the people who make >the decisions in a country. He gave as an example the way >the desire of people in England after WWII for national health >care and the way it became the law. Filter up. Not "demand" and expect demands to be gratified. For the record, I really haven't made up my mind about a need for military action against Iraq, but also accept that the idea of tough talk and shows of force can be short-of-war means of enforcing diplomacy. I do personally reject the idea that any currently suggested military action is principally targeted against the Iraqi general people, simply because there is no military, economic, or diplomatic reason to do so. Targeting leadership and enablers of leadership is a different matter. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:14:35 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements - --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Howard for expressing accurately the complexity of the democracy issue. Fact is that there is no practical means of assessing the true will of "the people" in a democracy beyond their choice of representation by suffrage. To what extent the demonstrators of a demonstration reflect the "general will" cannot truly be quantified. Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a specific intersection or common purpose among a wide array of protesting groups in the case that these same groups would otherwise pursue radically disparate causes. Larry - --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Howard for expressing accurately the complexity= of the democracy issue. 

Fact is that there is no practical means of assessing the true will of "the=20= people" in a democracy beyond their choice of representation by suffrage.&nb= sp; To what extent the demonstrators of a demonstration reflect the "general= will" cannot truly be quantified. 

Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a specific in= tersection or common purpose among a wide array of protesting groups in the=20= case that these same groups would otherwise pursue radically disparate cause= s.

Larry - --part1_146.bae0077.2b909e9b_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #420 ******************************