Netizens-Digest Wednesday, March 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 443 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:42:51 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off At 11:47 PM -0500 3/25/03, Jay Hauben wrote: >Hi, > >I wrote: > >> > The march resembled the Internet. > >Howard responded: >> >> Ummmm...we have rather different perceptions of what constitutes "the >> Internet." > >I think Howard is maybe correct. My understanding of the Internet is that >it is more than the technology. And to most, if not all, Internet engineering professionals, we would say that your understanding is incorrect. >For me the Internet is the users and the >technology in a symbiotic like relation producing a system and practice of >communication. That communication has for human society 2 important >characteristics. It has the potential to be universal and to provide >uncensored speech so that all contributions can be made and considered. It >is in that sense that I wrote that the march resembled the Internet. If I showed up at an antiwar demonstration with a placard praising Bush, or even further Saddam, I would reasonably expect to need to defend my physical safety. If I create an opposing website, I can state my views without physical danger, and, with appropriate safeguards, with a reasonable chance of preventing my site from being defaced. I can't do that in a mass march. That's a vital difference. >The >sea of homemade signs was my point of resemblence. And the active >participation in an important question for the US society was my >connection with netizenship. For me netizenship is both taking >responsibilty for the health and spread of the net and for the health of >one's society as well. Let me draw out the health analogy. Among other lists to which I subscribe are several ones literally dealing with health. One, for example, is PRO-MED, primarily emphasizing epidemiology and public health. The bulk of the posts to that list deal with outbreaks of unknown or variant diseases, of known diseases breaking out in unusual places or circumstances, and some environmental things such as toxic contamination of public health interest. Other lists, more closely related, deal respectively with emergency medical service (paramedic and emergency room, for example) operations and issues, and with trauma medicine. If I were looking for information on the new form of severe influenza, apparently caused by paroxonoviruses rather than the usual influenza viruses, I'd go to PRO-MED. I wouldn't go to TRAUMA-L and hunt for influenza material scattered among the large debates on optimal intravenous fluid use in trauma victims. I wouldn't look for information on stabilizing neck fractures on PRO-MED. It's not just the current signal-to-noise ratios on these lists. All of them have searchable archives of their significant historical content. These archives are valuable, in large part, because they cover well-defined topics so a researcher knows which archive to check for which matter. PRO-MED is moderated while the others are not. Incidentally, there have been attempts to post both pro- and anti-war comment on these lists, attempts that met with generally intense protest. At the same time, if an Iraqi physician came up with a question on how to _treat_ battle trauma, I am confident that American and others would rush to give all information they had. In information technology, we speak of "push" and "pull" technologies. "Push" technology, such as a mailing list, sends unsolicited content to recipients that have indicated prior interest in the topic. "Pull" technologies are driven by a deliberate attempt by a user to seek their contents. To keep value high, the content of a push information medium has to stay focused within subject guidelines, or its value to subscribers narrowly drops. I joined this list at Ronda's invitation, concerned with a specific area of government-network interaction (Domain Naming System policy and input into the policy formulation process). I would not have joined a list with as nebulous a charter as "the health of the society," although I might have joined multiple lists each dealing with a specific aspect of that society -- I do, in fact, belong to multiple useful lists that deal with health in the most literal sense. I also must subscribe to 30 or more lists that each deal with a very specific technology. >Howard continued > >> ... There are limited venues for discussing interactions between >> electronic/photonic networks and the political process. > >That maybe true but we may differ over what is meant by "the political >process". For me the march was a piece of that process. So seeking the >connection of the march to the Internet is worthwhile. And if you and others persist on making that connection and broadening the scope of the list beyond places where it is a unique place to discuss very specific interactions that may not be discussed well otherwise, you won't find me here. >And I consider the >Internet as I said above a communications network currently >electronic/photonic but important because of the communication. >Understanding the technology is crucial to helping the Internet to grow >and it is valuable to have Howard and others who do on this list. In like manner, you probably won't have many Internet technology experts. Literally, we have a well-understood operational definition of the Internet, as opposed to social communications. They are different, if perhaps complementary, fields. Bluntly, unless you've paid your dues going back the beginning of information sharing networks -- well before the "Internet" -- you are not going to be taken seriously by technologists if you redefine our accepted vocabulary to include what many may see as a political agenda. Just as Larry quite properly took me to task for using "regime" colloquially rather than technically, so do social scientists often have precise definitions. I suspect they do not like those definitions co-opted as well, judging by Larry's comments of my interpretation of the way you used "regime" to suggess lack of legitimacy. Again bluntly, Jay, you are going to have to decide if you are willing to abide by reasonable scopes of topics relevant and not relevant to the list. If you are not, you certainly can have a list - -- but you will have ever-decreasing participation by Internet and possibly social scientists. As far as I can tell, I am the only experienced Internet infrastructure engineer that posts on a regular basis, I am actively considering leaving over what I consider a waste of time caused by posts flogging ideological agendas, and I certainly wouldn't recommend any of my colleagues join the list. I would like to be wrong on every one of those observations. > > >I wrote: >> > >> >My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and the military personnel and their >> >families whose lives are being shattered by this war. > >By "military personnel" I meant British and American fighters. I included >the Iraqi military as part of the Iraqi people. > >So I agreed with Howard or he was agreeing with me when he wrote: > >> I regret the tragedy to all people on all sides. And I consider those regrets and tragedies completely irrelevant to what I perceive as the main focus of this list. I am certainly not going to bring up my views on some of those tragedies, on either side, quite possibly being necessary evils. My response to you was primarily an attempt to be conciliatory. > >Perhaps we can agree we are searching to understand and contribute to the >Internet and netizenship. Then our differences may be over how might a >netizen act in so troubling a time as this appears to be to me. > It is a very major difference, and I'll close with an analogy that may or may not be relevant or offensive -- I'm not much sure I care at this point. The current class president at the US National War College is COL Rhonda Cornum, the Army surgeon captured and abused in the 1991 Gulf War. She and other highly regarded military officers are not rushing to the sound of the guns. Instead, they are part of a longer-term effort to refine their skills and their future contributions as top leaders. If the basic mechanisms of the Internet, both technical and social, are not understood, we will make no farther progress on having something that can help with specific events in specific troubling times. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:07:33 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_b2.1a736b4b.2bb30e25_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/25/03 9:59:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes: > And, in truth, I am similarly annoyed. It seems to me that Howard has > been making a perfectly plausible argument about the appropriate scope > of the list, and Jay hasn't offered a clear alternative that I have > registered, and yet much of the content of his post simply disregards > what Howard has said. At best, it seems like waving a red flag in front > of a bull (no disrespect to Howard intended!). It makes me feel that my > own efforts to discern and contribute to a common purpose for the list, > as well as Howard's and other people's efforts, are futile. > > Mark Lindeman > I am not entirely happy about the direction of the posts either but on the other hand look at this activity as a 'random perturbation of the system,' albeit the case that it is not really random. Just believe and pray that we'll eventually settle back into a more favorable limit cycle. I'm crossing my eyes and fingers as well as holding my breath. ...and now ...turning a shade of blue. ...Please help! Larry - --part1_b2.1a736b4b.2bb30e25_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/25/03 9:59:59 AM Eastern Standard= Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:

And, in truth, I am similarly a= nnoyed.  It seems to me that Howard has
been making a perfectly plausible argument about the appropriate scope
of the list, and Jay hasn't offered a clear alternative that I have
registered, and yet much of the content of his post simply disregards
what Howard has said.  At best, it seems like waving a red flag in fron= t
of a bull (no disrespect to Howard intended!).  It makes me feel that m= y
own efforts to discern and contribute to a common purpose for the list,
as well as Howard's and other people's efforts, are futile.

Mark Lindeman


I am not entirely happy about the direction of the posts either but on the o= ther hand look at this activity as a 'random perturbation of the system,' al= beit the case that it is not really random.  Just believe and pray that= we'll eventually settle back into a more favorable limit cycle. 

I'm crossing my eyes and fingers as well as holding my breath.

...and now

...turning a shade of blue.

...Please help!

Larry - --part1_b2.1a736b4b.2bb30e25_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:32 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_1e9.5180ea1.2bb3134c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/26/03 1:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > To keep value high, the content of a push information medium has to > stay focused within subject guidelines, or its value to subscribers > narrowly drops. > Innuendos regarding membership to this list are beginning to 'snowball.' Let us not be hostage to our passions regarding posts and stick to topic. Moreover, remain objective. This post is such a great resource. Why are we damaging it? Larry - --part1_1e9.5180ea1.2bb3134c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/26/03 1:45:10 AM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

To keep value high, the content= of a push information medium has to
stay focused within subject guidelines, or its value to subscribers
narrowly drops.


Innuendos regarding membership to this list are beginning to 'snowball.'&nbs= p; Let us not be hostage to our passions regarding posts and stick to topic.=   Moreover, remain objective. 

This post is such a great resource.  Why are we damaging it?

Larry - --part1_1e9.5180ea1.2bb3134c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:34:29 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off I suspect that the issue whether the Internet is "the technology" or is a symbiosis of users and technology is something of a red herring. Probably worth discussing, but not an issue on which list participants must agree in order to have fruitful discussions on other issues. Howard has contributed vigorously and productively in many threads about political and social aspects, concomitants, potentials of the Net. Jay wrote: > >For me the Internet is the users and the > >technology in a symbiotic like relation producing a system and practice of > >communication. That communication has for human society 2 important > >characteristics. It has the potential to be universal and to provide > >uncensored speech so that all contributions can be made and considered. It > >is in that sense that I wrote that the march resembled the Internet. That's interesting. But, apart from Howard's points, I have to say that I find the Internet itself a more useful contribution to uncensored speech than a mass demonstration. When I'm looking for ideas, I go to the Net, not to demos. Still, I can imagine a continuing dialogue over whether (1) it's specious to separate the two, and/or (2) the parallels between the two are closer than I believe. I'm not sure how fruitful it would be. We don't always have to know in advance. My problem with Jay's original post was that it seemed to be much heavier on opposition to war than on any effort to understand the Net or Netizenship. I won't try to elaborate on that reaction, except to remind Jay and others that _I_ oppose the war. Howard wrote: > Let me draw out the health analogy. [...huge snip] All great stuff. Jay wrote: > >That maybe true but we may differ over what is meant by "the political > >process". For me the march was a piece of that process. So seeking the > >connection of the march to the Internet is worthwhile. and Howard responded: > And if you and others persist on making that connection and > broadening the scope of the list beyond places where it is a unique > place to discuss very specific interactions that may not be discussed > well otherwise, you won't find me here. My response would be a bit different. If I had thought that Jay was primarily "seeking the connection of the march to the Internet," I might have been interested, or not, but I would not have had the "oh, geez, another gratuitous political diatribe" reaction that I actually did. I did not learn much from Jay's post, it seemed more likely to alienate than to engage folks who might not agree with his analysis of the war, and therefore I frowned when I read it. I am a card-carrying expert (heh) in public opinion analysis. There is no expert consensus even on the definition of "public opinion." We have taken the time to learn some part of each other's conceptual languages, so that we can generally understand each other, support each other's work when possible, shrug our shoulders when not, try to learn from each other. We do not spend much time quarreling about the true meaning of public opinion, nor about the war in Iraq. We judge the credibility of our arguments in part by whether we can justify them without reference to our ideological precommitments, and (more important) whether our colleagues who do not share those precommitments find them convincing. Howard wrote, > Just as Larry quite properly took me to task for using "regime" > colloquially rather than technically, I think you're thinking of me, Howard. (sniff) Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:39:34 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_4d.2d7aff45.2bb315a6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/26/03 1:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Just as Larry quite properly took me to task for using "regime" > colloquially rather than technically, so do social scientists often > have precise definitions. I suspect they do not like those > definitions co-opted as well, judging by Larry's comments of my > interpretation of the way you used "regime" to suggess lack of > legitimacy. > > Actually Howard, it was Mark making the point this time. I am a mathematician. I leave the 'William Safire' to your capable hands. Larry - --part1_4d.2d7aff45.2bb315a6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/26/03 1:45:10 AM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Just as Larry quite properly to= ok me to task for using "regime"
colloquially rather than technically, so do social scientists often
have precise definitions. I suspect they do not like those
definitions co-opted as well, judging by Larry's comments of my
interpretation of the way you used "regime" to suggess lack of
legitimacy.



Actually Howard, it was Mark making the point this time.  I am a mathem= atician.  I leave the 'William Safire' to your capable hands.

Larry - --part1_4d.2d7aff45.2bb315a6_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:29:48 -0500 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?) A small, belated epiphany. When Howard first wrote that TV and radio are "part of the net," I interpreted the phrase as "a subset of the net." Surely he meant something like "integrated into the net." So that resolves my concern that he was offering too "big and vague" a generalization. After offering a lot of helpful background, Howard closed with: > What's my point? If advertisers, for example, want to bring television > to consumers and need to do so through other than wireless broadcast, > the physical facilities can deliver telephony and Internet > applications at a very small marginal difference. > > The media giants may have a pernicious effect on "major media" > content, but they also may subsidize access to other resources > previously not affordable. > > It's not a simple problem. OK. I wonder what it would cost the government to provide universal access to the Net -- the answers, of course, depend inter alia on (1) whether access in libraries counts and (2) whether the access has to be broadband (and how fast). [I think that some level of in-home broadband access is not an unreasonable goal.] But that question might be moot anyway. If the media giants are likely to wire the U.S. and other nations [i.e., the "last mile" and down] for broadband everything, then it makes sense to harness that development. Mark ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #443 ******************************