Netizens-Digest Friday, April 4 2003 Volume 01 : Number 457 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship? Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:11:25 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Howard wrote, > Our social scientists can comment better than I, Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of surveys, but if we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,' survey methods do have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply that some such referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of democratic process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to learn more about their collective beliefs. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 20:12:14 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) >Howard wrote, > >> Our social scientists can comment better than I, > >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. > >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of surveys, but if >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,' survey methods do >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply that some such >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of democratic >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to learn more about >their collective beliefs. > >Mark Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective thinking. To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization, whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from partisanship? Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany, the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion, whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that, he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment. Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:21:10 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) I'll just interject that I'll be away at a conference through Sunday afternoon. And my laptop is of the 8-pound variety, and is not invited. So, any further contributions or provocations from me will have to wait at least that long! Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 02:20:08 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Can this be netizenship? - --part1_12f.2717bfdd.2bbe8c28_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/03 9:10:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > Hello Dan: > I do not support hacktivism against anyone, because as a netizen I think my > mission is to encourage and spread unimpaired communications, hacktivism > attempts to disrupt communication. Once you resort to terrorism in any form > expect it to be done to you. Its in the nature of totalitarian states to > censor > and therefore control communcations. Netizens by contrast should encourage > and > help spread communications, which the hacktivists and their friends the > totalitarians try to disrupt. I am all for an honest game, even if my > opponent > plays dirty. > Luis de Quesada > I agree Luis. Larry D>Dan Duris wrote: D> D> Hi, D> D> I support hacktivism in case of doing it against totalitarian D> regimes. D> D> Check www.hacktivismo.org (or .com?) for hacktivismo declaration and D> why open source is not so good. They have their own open source D> declaration that explicitly forbids to use software released under D> that licence by totalitarian states. The real effect is questionable though. D> D> dan D> -------------------------- D> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk D> ICQ: 17932727 D> D> *- the way is: libertarianism -* - --part1_12f.2717bfdd.2bbe8c28_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/3/03 9:10:56 AM Eastern Standard=20= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

Hello Dan:
I do not support hacktivism against anyone, because as a netizen I think my<= BR> mission is to encourage and spread unimpaired communications, hacktivism
attempts to disrupt communication. Once you resort to terrorism in any form<= BR> expect it to be done to you.  Its in the nature of totalitarian states=20= to censor
and therefore control communcations. Netizens by contrast should encourage a= nd
help spread communications, which the hacktivists and their friends the
totalitarians try to disrupt. I am all for an honest game, even if my oppone= nt
plays dirty.
Luis de Quesada


I agree Luis.

Larry

D>Dan Duris wrote:
D>
D> Hi,
D>
D> I support hacktivism in case of doing it against totalitarian
D> regimes.
D>
D> Check www.hacktivismo.org (or .com?) for hacktivismo declaration and D> why open source is not so good. They have their own open source
D> declaration that explicitly forbids to use software released under
D> that licence by totalitarian states. The real effect is questionable t= hough.
D>
D> dan
D> --------------------------
D> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
D> ICQ: 17932727
D>
D> *- the way is: libertarianism -*


 - --part1_12f.2717bfdd.2bbe8c28_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 02:40:46 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_84.de04804.2bbe90fe_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > M>No matter how we conceptualize what this thread has been about, I think a > wide > M>range of differences have been rather fully aired. The thread arguably > M>illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people really > M>disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely to > M>resolve them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a > M>different result. > Well put Mark. But perhaps the issue here is more of persuasion than deliberation. Consider your definition of "insanity." Larry - --part1_84.de04804.2bbe90fe_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
M>No matter how we conceptua= lize what this thread has been about, I think a wide
M>range of differences have been rather fully aired.  The thread arg= uably
M>illustrates the limitations of deliberative democracy: when people real= ly
M>disagree, deliberation may illuminate the differences but isn't likely=20= to
M>resolve them.  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expe= cting a
M>different result.


Well put Mark.  But perhaps the issue here is more of persuasion than d= eliberation.  Consider your definition of "insanity."

Larry - --part1_84.de04804.2bbe90fe_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 04:06:30 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --part1_1ab.12cdf3ba.2bbea516_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Luis>So is > Luis>creating more > Luis>referendums the cure? > It requires a lot of discipline to adequately understand an issue under referendum. Honestly, the masses do not have discipline. A true understanding requires a fervor for the pursuit of truth via the fair processing of all opposing sides of an issue, but people are too easily seduced. In a referendum, a major decision is made by a hell of a lot of people who really should have the opportunity to officially persuade each other, like jurists, so that a well-reasoned decision is made via consultation with others who each have a piece of the issue puzzle. It should not be the case that, a person can vote about an issue and this person is not adequately educated about this issue -- particularly with regard to how the decision will practically affect all segments of the constituency. Nevertheless, this is the case. You cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues. You might minimally want to test prospective voters first to make sure that they understand the basic underlying concepts. A passing score authorizes them to cast a vote. Howrd>Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying Howrd>to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their Howrd>budgetary or operational ramifications. I can definitely see this happening. As I said, people are easily seduced -- meaning that they zone into or immediately respond to that which resonates within them about an issue before considering the bigger picture. Regarding access to information: Everyone has to have access to all relevant information and the same information with real time updates -- right up to the time of voting. You need to build some universally accessible "intelligent agents" with data mining features. Larry - --part1_1ab.12cdf3ba.2bbea516_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Luis>So is
Luis>creating more
Luis>referendums the cure?


It requires a lot of discipline to adequately understand an issue under refe= rendum.  Honestly, the masses do not have discipline.  A true unde= rstanding requires a fervor for the pursuit of truth via the fair processing= of all opposing sides of an issue, but people are too easily seduced.

In a referendum, a major decision is made by a hell of a lot of people who r= eally should have the opportunity to officially persuade each other, like ju= rists, so that a well-reasoned decision is made via consultation with others= who each have a piece of the issue puzzle.  It should not be the case=20= that, a person can vote about an issue and this person is not adequately edu= cated about this issue -- particularly with regard to how the decision will=20= practically affect all segments of the constituency. 

Nevertheless, this is the case.

You cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues.  You might minim= ally want to test prospective voters first to make sure that they understand= the basic underlying concepts.  A passing score authorizes them to cas= t a vote.

Howrd>Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying=
Howrd>to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their
Howrd>budgetary or operational ramifications.

I can definitely see this happening.  As I said, people are easily sedu= ced -- meaning that they zone into or immediately respond to that which reso= nates within them about an issue before considering the bigger picture. = ;

Regarding access to information: Everyone has to have access to all relevant= information and the same information with real time updates -- right up to=20= the time of voting.  You need to build some universally accessible "int= elligent agents" with data mining features.

Larry - --part1_1ab.12cdf3ba.2bbea516_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 09:37:43 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Hello Howard: I am somewhat familiar with Otto Ohlendorf and his Inland Intelligence, (was he a subordinate of Admiral Canaris or Himmler?)and later on his SS Einzatskommando, just another extermination unit. There wasn't much or any room at the top echelon of the Third Reich for any surveys,constructive criticism,never mind plain criticism, the only disagreement was on efficiency etc. Statistical methods were always used as a way to more efficient and faster killings, extermination at death camps, etc. I think Stalin did likewise,not much room for criticism, that is, although ethnic cleansing was not one of his top priorities. I hope in this case we are not dealing with the likes of Hitler, Heydrich, et al. Just a simple electoral referendum here in a democracy, a republic or a facsimile thereof, the definitions of our present system of government are getting too technical for me lately. Luis de Quesada "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Howard wrote, > > > >> Our social scientists can comment better than I, > > > >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. > > > >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of surveys, but if > >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,' survey methods do > >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply that some such > >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of democratic > >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to learn more about > >their collective beliefs. > > > >Mark > > Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens > might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding > referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not > viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve > accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex > situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the > susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective > thinking. > > To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization, > whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by > lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it > feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from > partisanship? > > Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of > what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany, > the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what > were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion, > whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the > leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the > leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were > shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of > intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force > (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that, > he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's > entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was > an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or > no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment. > > Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:05:11 -0500 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) - --------------EBA03DEB820781F6D66B0BDD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully disagree on the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot be selective and bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or underqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a government cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using the media available, including on line communications, the electorate prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid to hear the voice of the majority, even though I must agree that several times throughout history fatal errors have been made by it. Luis de Quesada AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > > >> Luis>So is >> Luis>creating more >> Luis>referendums the cure? > > It requires a lot of discipline to adequately understand an issue > under referendum. Honestly, the masses do not have discipline. A > true understanding requires a fervor for the pursuit of truth via the > fair processing of all opposing sides of an issue, but people are too > easily seduced. > > In a referendum, a major decision is made by a hell of a lot of people > who really should have the opportunity to officially persuade each > other, like jurists, so that a well-reasoned decision is made via > consultation with others who each have a piece of the issue puzzle. > It should not be the case that, a person can vote about an issue and > this person is not adequately educated about this issue -- > particularly with regard to how the decision will practically affect > all segments of the constituency. > > Nevertheless, this is the case. > > You cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues. You might > minimally want to test prospective voters first to make sure that they > understand the basic underlying concepts. A passing score authorizes > them to cast a vote. > > Howrd>Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of > trying > Howrd>to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their > Howrd>budgetary or operational ramifications. > > I can definitely see this happening. As I said, people are easily > seduced -- meaning that they zone into or immediately respond to that > which resonates within them about an issue before considering the > bigger picture. > > Regarding access to information: Everyone has to have access to all > relevant information and the same information with real time updates > -- right up to the time of voting. You need to build some universally > accessible "intelligent agents" with data mining features. > > Larry - --------------EBA03DEB820781F6D66B0BDD Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: Although you've raised some valid points, I respectfully disagree on the part "you cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues". The way I understand democracy, it cannot be selective and bar from voting those who may be regarded as ignorant or underqualified, that's a chance you have to take or its not democracy. I still would not put an ignoramus in a government cabinet post of course. You educate or attempt to educate, using the media available, including on line communications, the electorate prior to voting, explain what the issue is, etc. I am never afraid to hear the voice of the majority, even though  I must agree that several times throughout history fatal errors have been made by it.
Luis de Quesada

AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:

 
Luis>So is
Luis>creating more
Luis>referendums the cure?

It requires a lot of discipline to adequately understand an issue under referendum.  Honestly, the masses do not have discipline.  A true understanding requires a fervor for the pursuit of truth via the fair processing of all opposing sides of an issue, but people are too easily seduced.

In a referendum, a major decision is made by a hell of a lot of people who really should have the opportunity to officially persuade each other, like jurists, so that a well-reasoned decision is made via consultation with others who each have a piece of the issue puzzle.  It should not be the case that, a person can vote about an issue and this person is not adequately educated about this issue - -- particularly with regard to how the decision will practically affect all segments of the constituency.

Nevertheless, this is the case.

You cannot have ignorant people deciding major issues.  You might minimally want to test prospective voters first to make sure that they understand the basic underlying concepts.  A passing score authorizes them to cast a vote.

Howrd>Too many referendums offer the danger of micromanagement, of trying
Howrd>to deal with issues without necessarily thinking through their
Howrd>budgetary or operational ramifications.

I can definitely see this happening.  As I said, people are easily seduced -- meaning that they zone into or immediately respond to that which resonates within them about an issue before considering the bigger picture.

Regarding access to information: Everyone has to have access to all relevant information and the same information with real time updates -- right up to the time of voting.  You need to build some universally accessible "intelligent agents" with data mining features.

Larry

- --------------EBA03DEB820781F6D66B0BDD-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #457 ******************************