Netizens-Digest Thursday, March 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 445 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:06:43 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off >In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jrh@umcc.ais.org writes: > >>The march resembled >>the Internet. >> > > >Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it >is unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of >others in its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is >civil and it is tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency >of message is low -- just like spam. Commercial spam at least has a clear agenda: profits for its initiator, using an economic model that simply evaluates the direct cost to the sender against the receiver. Cost to the recipient simply does not enter into the spammer's equation. The impact on the recipient will vary. I normally receive several hundred emails per day, of which perhaps 20% is spam. I have quite extensive server-side and client-side filtering that took substantial effort to set up, but now lets me see my mail without having to sort through many irrelevancies. On occasion, while traveling, I have to retrieve mail through a web interface that does not have the extensive filtering of my home machine. My mail productivity drops immensely, both because I have to sort through the spam, and I also lack the other message handling that organizes mail into topic-specific folders. Where the latter operates, it converts a push technology to a pull one--I can read my medical lists, or my cooking lists, or any of assorted networking technology lists, when I am prepared to focus my mind on that topic. Now, when I speak of demonstrations, I'm not including quiet vigils and the like that do not block traffic, drown out speakers, prevent people from getting to offices and shops, etc. I have a good deal of respect for those who respect me, and the dignified action of that sort of protester earns my respect. I can even engender more respect for a protester who makes a direct and specific action and takes personal responsibility, such as someone that pours blood or defaces a weapon. As opposed to spammers, someone who is willing to be arrested to make a point is not taking extensive precautions from any negative feedback. They are accountable. IN THE PRESENCE OF NEW MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS, however, I find the large street demonstration, while generally within the scope of the law, to be remarkably inconsiderate of neutral parties -- including people who may even support the cause, but for perfectly mundane reasons of health or need to care for children, do not have the leisure to participate in the demonstration. So what is the benefit of the mass demonstration, given there are more focused alternatives (i.e., exactly what we can do with technology empowerment)? I suggest it is driven just as much by "personal" interest as the spammer, except the payoff is not economic, but typically to motivate people already committed to the protest theme. Without endorsing or disapproving, I post another person's comment from another newsgroup, on which there is considerable reasoned discussion but a very different ideology than many of the protest groups. I suggest people examine this from a public communication and information theoretic standpoint, and consider whether net-enabled communications may be more focused and effective, if not as emotionally satisfying for the participants: > >:I'm in favor of continuing this war to its logical conclusion. I'm also in >:favor of letting these idiots protest their little brains out, for at least >:three reasons: >: 1. Most of them sound like idiots, no matter how forcefully they make >:their stand >: 2. What, we can't take a little criticism? >: 3. Given the person who is now NCA, does anyone believe that a protest >:will change his course of action? > >I've got one more. Given that their actions are often designed to be >as disruptive and inconvenient as possible to the typical man in the >street, what they're going to do is piss people off AT THEM rather >than at the government or the war. > >If they really want to self-inflict and drive people into opposition >to them, I say more power to them! In summary, if we explore the similarities (or lack thereof) between marches and Net-enabled communications, I urge serious reflection on the balance of personal satisfaction in marching, to the actual achievement of goals and the alienation of neutrals or potential supporters. Netizenship, and net-hased communications, is attractive to me because it introduces new and potentially more effective communications paradigms. Focusing on the net as a means of enabling marches might be analogous to developing industrial robots to mass produce really good manual typewriters. > >I don't know. > >The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to >compare the marches with the Internet? > >The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of >these communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite >analogous and would naturally tend to influence the behavior of >those who wish exploit these tools differently, in ways that are >unique to each medium. > >Moreover, I argue that the product of these behaviors might not be >meaningfully comparable. [snip good analogies of different approaches to creating music] > >I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by >examining the march. > >Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:12:50 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jrh@umcc.ais.org writes: > > > The march resembled > > the Internet. > > Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is > unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in > its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is > tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low -- > just like spam. No the march did not at all represent spam. Larry did you look at the slogans of the march? The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust actions of their government. And the ability to present their views to each other. I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this march was a very special experience. There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are portrayed by the American media. What is spam? Spam is something that is nonsense. The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death to protect your right to say it. That does *not* apply to advertisements. The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements. But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse views. And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment to welcoming a diversity of views. Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3 "The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or background explication, and explicit questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed). (from Chapter 7, of Netizens) > > I don't know. > > The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the > marches with the Internet? Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views. I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors. They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and that the US government has ignored world opinion. They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US citizens and so does the U.S. government. > > The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these > communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite analogous and would > naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these > tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium. Both make it possible for a multiplicity of views to be shared. That is a significant contribution of both. > I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by examining > the march. It is interesting that the early research on the ARPANET was during the period of the anti Vietnam movement. You might find it of interest to read Netizens, or at least some of the chapters Michael wrote for it. In chapter 7, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and Computer Science" Michael describes why he feels the open process of the RFC's was so important. "The open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information. Technical development is only successful when information is allowed to flow fereely and easily between the parties involved. Encouraging participation is the main principle that made the development of the Net possible. "Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their support of a process of openness. They were written during the late 1960s, a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were demanding more of a say in how their countries were run. The open environment needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the cry for more democracy that students and others raised throughout the world during the 1960s...." http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ Cheers Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:40:56 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off >On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, >> jrh@umcc.ais.org writes: >> >> > The march resembled >> > the Internet. >> >> Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is >> unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in >> its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is >> tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low -- >> just like spam. > > >No the march did not at all represent spam. > >Larry did you look at the slogans of the march? > >The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust >actions of their government. Except that ability ends at the same figurative place that ends your freedom to wave your fist -- the end of my nose. Peaceful demonstrations, or even focused civil disobedience, is not equivalent, to me, to shutting down parts of major cities or imposing inconveniences on neutrals. > >And the ability to present their views to each other. > >I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations >and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this >march was a very special experience. > >There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and >thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are >portrayed by the American media. > >What is spam? > >Spam is something that is nonsense. No. Spam is many things, but nonsense is not one of them. It is a very conscious, if discourteous and exploitative way, of achieving a (usually) commercial but sometimes political goal. > >The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by >the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. > >The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is >that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death >to protect your right to say it. I take it, then, that you are absolutely opposed to Internet censorship and hacktivism? That is a question, not a challenge. > >That does *not* apply to advertisements. > >The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements. > >But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse >views. > >And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment >to welcoming a diversity of views. And I can accept a demonstration more easily than some of the same participants shouting down a speaker with different views. > >Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3 > >"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. >related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are >encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical >positions without examples or other specifics, specific >suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or >background explication, and explicit questions without any >attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG >note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed). >(from Chapter 7, of Netizens) NWG may have had that role twenty-odd years ago, but the IETF (successor to the NWG) has far different rules today. I'm currently considering an appeal to the Internet Engineering Steering Group to permit a relatively minor variation from the rules, to allow us to have six authors on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt and still let it go to RFC (the successor to notes). To put it in perspective, you cite NWG 3. Today's, the document numbers of the successor documents are in the mid-3000's. Ronda, I respectfully suggest that you occasionally post social and organizational practices from the very dawn of the Internet and assume they are still valid and found to be useful by the participants. Experience has sometimes found they are not. In particular, things that could work when you could put all of the major participants in a large classroom don't scale to meetings with thousands of physical participants and at least tens of thousands of virtual participants. That we've changed methods doesn't mean we still don't do good work. > > >> >> I don't know. >> >> The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the >> marches with the Internet? > >Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the >ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views. > >I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors. > >They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with >regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and >that the US government has ignored world opinion. > >They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US >citizens and so does the U.S. government. > > >> >> The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these >> communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite >>analogous and would >> naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these >> tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium. > >Both make it possible for a multiplicity of views to be shared. > >That is a significant contribution of both. > > >> I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by examining >> the march. > >It is interesting that the early research on the ARPANET was during >the period of the anti Vietnam movement. > >You might find it of interest to read Netizens, or at least some >of the chapters Michael wrote for it. > >In chapter 7, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and >Computer Science" Michael describes why he feels the open process >of the RFC's was so important. > >"The open process encouraged and led to the exchange of information. >Technical development is only successful when information is >allowed to flow fereely and easily between the parties involved. >Encouraging participation is the main principle that made the development >of the Net possible. > >"Statements like the ones contained in RFC-3 are democratic in their >support of a process of openness. They were written during the late >1960s, a time of popular protest for freedom of speech. People were >demanding more of a say in how their countries were run. The open >environment needed to develop new technologies is consistent with the >cry for more democracy that students and others raised throughout >the world during the 1960s...." > >http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ > >Cheers > >Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:39:15 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > > > >> In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >> jrh@umcc.ais.org writes: > >> > >> > The march resembled > >> > the Internet. > >> > >> Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is > >> unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in > >> its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is > >> tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low -- > >> just like spam. > > > > > >No the march did not at all represent spam. > > > >Larry did you look at the slogans of the march? > > > >The basis of any democracy is the ability of people to protest the unjust > >actions of their government. > > Except that ability ends at the same figurative place that ends your > freedom to wave your fist -- the end of my nose. Peaceful > demonstrations, or even focused civil disobedience, is not > equivalent, to me, to shutting down parts of major cities or imposing > inconveniences on neutrals. Howard, I was responding to Larry's statement about the many many thousands of homemade signs at the March on March 22, 2003 in New York City. The march had a permit. Why are you changing the subject? Do you agree that the ability to present ones views, whether in signs on a march, or in posts on the Internet or on Usenet, particularlywhen they are critical of or disagree with authority, are important? > > > > >And the ability to present their views to each other. > > > >I have gone to several demonstrations both regarding anti war situations > >and pro labor activities over a fairly long period of time, and this > >march was a very special experience. > > > >There were many many home made signs and the signs were clever and > >thoughtful and very different from the way the American people are > >portrayed by the American media. > > > >What is spam? > > > >Spam is something that is nonsense. > > > No. Spam is many things, but nonsense is not one of them. It is a > very conscious, if discourteous and exploitative way, of achieving a > (usually) commercial but sometimes political goal. > > > > >The march was discourse - was the activity that is protected by > >the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. > > > >The basis that I understand of my experience on the Internet is > >that I may disagree with what you say but I will dual to the death > >to protect your right to say it. > > I take it, then, that you are absolutely opposed to Internet > censorship and hacktivism? That is a question, not a challenge. I am not talking about hactivism and I am wondering what you mean by Internet censorship. But that is not the point of what I am referring to. I am referring to the support at one time I found on Usenet and still find in some places on Usenet and on the Internet for people to challenge what those in authority are promoting. The US government is the authority in the situation regarding the Iraq war. The effort to promote what IBM or Worldcom or CISCO might want as standards plays that role at times for the technical community with regard to the Internet. This is the principle I am talking about. This is what the signs at the march represented. This is the kind of speech that is so precious both on the Internet and in the USA at this time. This is the kind of speech that needs protection. > > > > >That does *not* apply to advertisements. > > > >The netizens list is from a university site that forbids advertisements. > > > >But the university does permit and values the expression of diverse > >views. > > > >And there would not be an Internet if there weren't the early commitment > >to welcoming a diversity of views. > > And I can accept a demonstration more easily than some of the same > participants shouting down a speaker with different views. > > > > >Michael writes about the RFC's and Steve Crocker's call in RFC 3 > > > >"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. > >related to the host or other aspect of the network. Notes are > >encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical > >positions without examples or other specifics, specific > >suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or > >background explication, and explicit questions without any > >attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG > >note is one sentence. (NWG is network working group-ed). > >(from Chapter 7, of Netizens) > > NWG may have had that role twenty-odd years ago, but the IETF (successor to the NWG) has far different rules today. I'm currently considering an appeal to the Internet Engineering Steering Group to permit a relatively minor variation from the rules, to allow us to have six authors on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt and still let it go to RFC (the successor to notes). I understand that the IETF is not the NWG. This doesn't change that the principle of the RFC is still a critical principle for the Internet and its development. > > To put it in perspective, you cite NWG 3. Today's, the document > numbers of the successor documents are in the mid-3000's. And a friend I have in Austria had the experience of having her views ignored in the IETF and the RFC she presented ignored. There are I am sure many such examples. But the principle is still the principle that gave birth to the Internet and this is the Netizens list. This is a list to help to identify and understand those principles. The U.S. declaration of independence is also an old document. And surely those in power in the US government do not feel the need to have the consent of the governed. Otherwise they wouldn't call protest demonstrations around the world and in the US the equivalent of a "focus group". But the principles of the RFC still are the guiding principles that netizens need to recognize and fight to have applied, and the principle of governments being constituted from the consent of the governed need to be recognized. Perhaps you disagree? > Ronda, I respectfully suggest that you occasionally post social and > organizational practices from the very dawn of the Internet and > assume they are still valid and found to be useful by the > participants. Experience has sometimes found they are not. In > particular, things that could work when you could put all of the > major participants in a large classroom don't scale to meetings with > thousands of physical participants and at least tens of thousands of > virtual participants. That we've changed methods doesn't mean we > still don't do good work. > Howard, I respectfully disagree. Tom Paine pointed out that "Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles they grow from." The Rights of Man If there are good founding principles then the form has a chance of being good and it in turn nourishes the principles to continue. The grassroots nature of the Internet and its development is a very important foundation. That grassroots nature is represented in the ways people find online to discuss various aspects of technical development and in the discussion of the vision that gave birth to the Internet as well. In the scaling it is critical not to lose sight of the fundamental nature that may have become more diffuse and therefore harder to recognize than the concentrated form that it appears in in the earliest form. That is why I find it helpful to look back at the concentrated earliest form. > > > > > >> > >> I don't know. > >> > >> The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want > >> to compare the > >> marches with the Internet? > > > >Jay was comparing the diversity of signs with the Internet, with the > >ability of the people to express their multiplicity of views. > > > >I just got back from a teachin at Columbia held by 30 tenured professors. > > > >They all see a very serious situation in the U.S. at the moment with > >regard to the fact that world opinion is so hostile to the war, and > >that the US government has ignored world opinion. > > > >They didn't mention that the US media ignores the opinion of US > >citizens and so does the U.S. government. > > > >> > >> The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these > >> communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite > >> analogous and would > >> naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these > >> tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium. The analogy to me is about the diversity of grassroots views and observations and discussion that both make possible. The march of March 22 in NYC made it possible for the participants to share a great number of views and observations with others. This is what is also very special about the Internet. Is there disagreement with regard respecting the ability of netizens to present their views and contributions as a very essential aspect of the Internet? The March 22 march in NYC was a situation where the ability of people to present their views and contributions was also present. This is rare in the US except for the Internet. In general the US media presents the views for people, not of people. At the March 22 march in NYC people were able to present their own views and participate and they did. They made signs and shared them with each other and with others in NYC. This was a rare event and an important event. And the other place this is possible in on the Internet in certain forms. For example there is an Indian newspaper that welcomes the views of its readers and has a substantial online discussion about the war against Iraq going on online. The discussion was started by an editorial entitled "Netizens Unite" Via discussion and the sharing of views there is the basis for netizens to unite. But there needs to be the desire to communicate. Ronda ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #445 ******************************