Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 479 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off) Re: [netz] Question about the list Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Question about the list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:56:45 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off) - --part1_1d4.70dac93.2bc44b3d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 2:00:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes: > Hello Alex: I interpret those rights to be freedom to postings and the > right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep > the internet free from privatization and are against government > sponsoring that privatization. > Luis, isn't it kind of dangerous to be this absolute? If some level of privatization works then I'm for it if it is good for the Netizen. Things are not always so black and white. In order to provide good solutions you must initially be willing to consider how the contribution of all relevant facets influence the problem. You've got to balance the rights of disparate parties and be willing to compromise. Larry - --part1_1d4.70dac93.2bc44b3d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 2:00:10 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:

Hello Alex: I interpret those r= ights to be freedom to postings and the
right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
the internet free from privatization and are against government
sponsoring that privatization.


Luis, isn't it kind of dangerous to be this absolute?  If some level of= privatization works then I'm for it if it is good for the Netizen.  Th= ings are not always so black and white.  In order to provide good solut= ions you must initially be willing to consider how the contribution of all r= elevant facets influence the problem.  You've got to balance the rights= of disparate parties and be willing to compromise.

Larry  - --part1_1d4.70dac93.2bc44b3d_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:22:00 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list Howard: I do not take any criticism, replies, etc. to what I say as bullyism. I respect criticism, the right to reply freedom of speech, etc. I did object to what you and Mark were doing a few days ago, when Mark I think referred to Jay, Ronda and I because of our postings and even to himself as co-dependents and then you receiving those statements with alacrity and even writing a little comedy about them, something like "would you please press the elevator button for me, because I am mentally unable to", or something to that effect. I regard that as an insult and a lack of respect for the Haubens as myself. As far as postings are concerned my position is as always. I insist on democracy here at netizens. I have the right to post about salmon cookery or whatever if I want to and if you disagree you can post whatever you like about it. I have made a special request that the name calling stop. I hope it did and will stop and if it will not, I can also take that, because in a democracy even insults are allowed, however if you resort to them and to making fun of others, then expect angry reactions and replies, expect to be challenged. You will not have a last word on that. As far as hacktivism, I am not afraid of hacktivism, it is terrorism. I am not afraid of terrorism, computers and servers can be restored and many times hacktivists are located and arrested and tried and the threat of any sort of legal retribution to stop my postings, does not affect me either, because if it did, I wouldn't even be in this forum. As far as workplace pressures I am not afraid of them either, but they do exist. Jay was a victim of them and that is why we are trying to keep the internet free of the fenagling and corrupt bosses. I hope you're not trying to scare me with hacktivism and other retributions? I am not transferring the responsibility of for justifying those services to the Haubens, but I think they're more educated in that area than I am. To finalize this useless debate, I can assure you of one thing, if your intention is to control this list, to mold it to your opinions, you will be replied to and challenged. Luis "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Hello: And everyone agrees with you, unfortunately even a former > >brownshirt can > >be a netizens. What I do not put up with is that brownshirt trying to enforce > >his coercion and censorship tactics in trying to prevent me from posting my > >opinions in netizens, or else he will leave or whatever, he will not get away > >with that. As far as being a netizen he can remain as long as he > >likes and post > >what he likes, but bearing in mind that I will not be silent to his bullyism, > >lack of respect and coercion tactics. He will be challenged, understand? A > >Cappito? > >Luis > > As to a brownshirt being a netizen, I'm glad we agree. But, frankly, > your attitude about criticism seems extreme. One of the reasons that > I want that brownshirt in the open is so I can criticize him in the > open, and help give the broader people the information to let them > make decisions. > > But you have an interesting concept of being bullied. It comes > across as that you will take any criticism whatsoever of your > statements as bullying. Yet, I assume that criticism of the > brownshirt is exactly what makes the Net useful in dealing with the > brownshirt. For me, one of the fundamental freedoms is the freedom > to be criticized in public -- and to defend my position in public. An > effective defense gains credibility for my positions. > > In other words, let the totalitarian post, let the totalitarian be > criticized. But the general netizen has to support freedom of speech > even when it hurts -- or there is no freedom of speech. That means > enduring some criticism, perhaps ignoring it, but giving the > appearance you are willing to participate in an exchange of > intellectual content, not raw emotion. > > I have absolutely no desire to censor you, Luis. But IF _I_ did, > there would be many ways to do so that are more efficient that > complaining to you on the net. This is in no means a threat or the > suggestion of one --- I'd merely ask you to consider, for example, > that if a hacktivist wanted to censor you, they would attack your > Internet access. Are you sure it's secure against a knowledgeable and > determined attackers? Others might attack you through law or through > workplace pressures. I don't see anyone doing that. I do see an > insistence on doing whatever you want to do without any > responsibilities for it. > > And, while you aren't going to like this, saying that your opinions > won't change, you won't justify them, and the Haubens will speak for > you hardly sounds like someone that wants meaningful participation in > a group process--dare I even say participatory democracy? That you > won't consider any of the costs or the realities of what you ask, > transferring the responsibility for justifying those services to the > Haubens? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:26:58 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Howard: If you call democracy a permissive kindergarten so be it. It is your right to do so, but I still call it democracy. You seem to have a problem with permissiveness, I don't. Apparently you seem to like to control people, I don't. So there we have differences of opinions. Lou D. "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Howard: For the love of Jesus! (forgive me I do not wish to offend > >you with the > >remark but I happen to be a christian). No one is saying to you that > >if you are > >pro-war, anti-war, pro-Mother Theresa or whatever you would like to be is > >against being a netizen. I believe every single netizen cherishes and welcome > >your contributions. But you must also accept everyone elses without constantly > >interjecting "you're off topic, I don't want to read this, etc. > > And I have _not_ been constantly saying that about individual > contributions. I have made comments about topicality about discussion > threads. There _is_ a difference. I invite you to post any such > example where I criticized an individual for a post without referring > to the context of the subject matter and related it to other posts. > > >If you keep > >posting about "the man in the moon" I'll leave, etc. > > I intend to do exactly that WITH RESPECT TO MY PARTICIPATION. I > remember being part of an organization where anyone could say > anything they wanted whenever they wanted, without any attempt to > organize their thoughts or to make progress on a soliution. > > That organization, however, wasn't attempting to call itself a forum > where ideas are presented with the purpose of affecting the society, > or where ideas can be debated. > > It was called a rather permissive kindergarten. > > >Netizens is a democratic forum, it welcomes all sort of ideas. I was pleading > >yesterday though that in replies to postings, no name calling be used. > > Does it occur to you that your fairly constant calling people censors > is doing exactly that? > > >When Jay > >or Ronda or myself post something about the war in Iraq or in east > >timbuktu, it > >would be nice if you don't resort to insulting remarks like "you're demeaning > >yourself by posting this, etc." > > Show me where I have said that. Yes, someone did--but be accurate in > your quotes. > > >I believe that's all Ronda, Jay and I mean. Stay as long as you like, post > >whatever you like, tell me you love laissez-faire capitalism ( hope > >I spelled it > >correctly if not please show me the correct spelling) in fact we love to be > >educated, love it! However we beg you, let us post in peace and > >reply , disagree > >and if anyone makes the least attempt to censor you or to imply that > >you do not > >belong in netizens because you are in favor of privatization of the > >internet, I > >will fight on your side! > >That's all we ask of you. > >Lou D. > > > > > >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > > >> >Hi, > >> > > >> >I am sorry to have not been able to participate in the current debates. > >> > > >> >For the record I want to state my position that netizens and netizenship > >> >are closely connected with the quest for participatory democracy. The net > >> >makes possible participation by people in the decisions that effect their > >> >lives. What is needed is a lot of work to achieve this goal, technical > >> >work and political work. What excited Michael in 1992-1993 was that he was > >> >contacted by many people online who were dedicating themselves to achieve > >> >that possibility. > >> > > >> >I feel many joined this list because of this goal. It is to me wonderful > >> >that technical and political scientists and others are in the current > >> >debates. > >> > >> The first goal for netizenship has to be having a net. Otherwise, > >> there is no differentiation between network-enabled and conventional > >> sociopolitical participation. > >> > >> >But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the > >> >goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the > >> >goal. > >> > >> Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as > >> bound to network-enabled participation. > >> > >> I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear > >> definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me > >> this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to > >> replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based > >> on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it > >> does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert > > > opinion that might not be otherwise available. > >> > >> > > >> >In any case I want to draw attention to my sense of the connection between > >> >democracy and the current war and general direction of US policies because > >> >that connection is for me at the essence of netizens and netizenship. > >> > >> I was hesitant about the attack into Iraq, but not into Afghanistan. > >> Nevertheless, I feel there is no realistic alternative, at this > >> point, to ousting the Baath leadership of Iraq, and returning control > >> to the Iraqi people. > >> > >> Does this make me a non-Netizen? Is there an ideological litmus test > >> for people who would use the Internet to affect political and social > >> systems? I don't consider myself pro-war or anti-war, but, as I > >> understand your usage of terms, I am pro-war. Does that make me a > >> non-Netizen? > >> > >> > > >> >Briefly, whoever committed the horrendous crimes of 9/11/01, whether the > >> >US government itself, something called al Quadea, or other forces, changes > >> >have been justified or explained by those events. The US government policy > >> >makers have argued and acted on the premise that the US had enjoyed too > >> >much democracy. > >> > >> _some_ policymakers have argued that. Others have argued strongly otherwise. > >> > >> Incidentally, I believe that some of the entertainment industry's > >> extreme measures to protect intellectual property -- and I do believe > >> in intellectual property rights -- are threats to civil liberties > >> comparable to excesses in antiterrorist activities. Yet the list > >> focus seems to stay on the war. > >> > >> >It was too easy here for people to communicate and to > >> >travel and to meet with each other. Also the government has been too > >> >restricted with its options by the various democratic practices that slow > >> >down the processes now needed. > >> > >> I have more faith, I suspect, in the self-correcting properties of > >> the American system than you do. Yes, I agree--the Patriot Act gave > >> lots of opportunities to restrict civil liberties. John Ashcroft > >> went beyond any conceivable satire when he draped the breasts of the > >> statue of Justice -- if he were truly self-consistent, he would have > >> put her in full burqua. > >> > >> But I see pressures on policymakers in many fora, from electronic > >> lists that are seen by people in power, to court actions, to > >> legislative remedies. No, these won't happen overnight. But > >> sometimes delay is a good thing, allowing for reflection and for the > >> passions of the moment to subside. > >> > >> > > >> >My conclusion is the opposite. That we need more democracy to safe guard > >> >our society. I take the program to lessen democracy as an attack on the > >> >goal of netizenship. Netizens means to me the fight for more democracy not > >> >less. > >> > > >> >As an example in my opinion, the war is the result of the failure of > >> >American Democracy. The US media failed to foster a debate on the question > >> >and the representatives to have such a debate. > >> > >> I have to disagree. The matter was debated in the Congress. What I'm > >> hearing is you invalidating that debate because it didn't reach the > >> conclusions you liked. > >> > >> I voted for Gore. But I accept that I lost and George W. Bush is the > >> President of the United States. Voting and debate are supposed to be, > >> I thought, processes whose results are not preordained. > >> > >> >But even absent that > >> >debate, the American people and most people in the world have little say > >> >if their government decides on war. The net makes possible the voicing of > >> >people's opinions or questions or doubts or agreement. But as yet we have > >> >not won the influence of that voicing on the decisions that effect > >> >people's lives. So it is also the failure so far for netizens to get > >> >closer to what I feel is the goal. > >> > >> Unless you are incorrect about the strength about antiwar feelings. > >> Again, it may be a majority agrees, or at least is neutral, on the > >> decision. Correct me if I misperceive, but I keep hearing from you > >> that a measurable majority is opposed to the war. While there have > >> probably been more antiwar demonstrations, polling data, which has a > >> reasonable accuracy record when elections are not available, do not > > > seem to support a massive antiwar sentiment. I remember Viet Nam, > >> and popular opinion was quite different than it is today. > >> > >> > > >> >I would hope this list could take up clarifying its purpose and working > >> >toward clarifying how we might move toward it. > >> > >> By "its purpose", I hope that you are not saying that its purpose is > >> simply an antiwar venue. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 12:29:36 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list >Howard: I do not take any criticism, replies, etc. to what I say as >bullyism. I >respect criticism, the right to reply freedom of speech, etc. I did >object to what >you and Mark were doing a few days ago, when Mark I think referred >to Jay, Ronda >and I because of our postings and even to himself as co-dependents >and then you >receiving those statements with alacrity and even writing a little >comedy about >them, something like "would you please press the elevator button for >me, because I >am mentally unable to", or something to that effect. I regard that >as an insult and >a lack of respect for the Haubens as myself. First, my response with the codependent joke was to Mark, not you. I'm amazed that anyone will take it seriously. Second, the quote was more that the codependent gets someone guilty enough to push the button for them. That is actually a fair statement when considered in the context of Mark and I finding ourselves guiltily drawn into discussions we had meant to ignore. Third, if you regard humor not even directed at you or the Haubens as an insult and lack of respect, you have my sincere pity. Someone once suggested that the requisite for political correctness is the total removal of the sense of humor. On a very practical basis, the oppressed people of totalitarian states have historically made extensive use of humor as a coping mechanism. I'm familiar with many such in Slavic and Jewish contexts. Most Cubans I've met have been delightful, passionate (in a good sense) people, and I suspect there is a wonderful body of contemporary political humor there. >As far as postings are concerned my position is as always. I insist >on democracy >here at netizens. I have the right to post about salmon cookery or >whatever if I >want to and if you disagree you can post whatever you like about it. >I have made a >special request that the name calling stop. To be perfectly honest, I have not seen anyone calling anyone else names. Indeed, I have been extremely careful to avoid any descriptors, even when some might be quite acceptable to the subject, such as "activist." Luis, if I intended to insult you, there would not be the slightest question in anyone's mind that I was doing so. >I hope it did and will stop and if it >will not, I can also take that, because in a democracy even insults >are allowed, >however if you resort to them and to making fun of others, then expect angry >reactions and replies, expect to be challenged. You will not have a >last word on >that. >As far as hacktivism, I am not afraid of hacktivism, it is terrorism. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the two. I, personally, have the skills to damage infrastructure with high explosives or with computer networks. I could cause far more damage and be less likely to be stopped or apprehended using hacking. >I am >not afraid of terrorism, computers and servers can be restored Try telling that to the hospital patients who are endangered because their medical records have been altered, or had a denial of access, due to hacktivism. The most recent case was in Washington State. >and many times >hacktivists are located and arrested Extremely rare, unfortunately. >and tried and the threat of any sort of legal >retribution to stop my postings, does not affect me either, because >if it did, I >wouldn't even be in this forum. As far as workplace pressures I am >not afraid of >them either, but they do exist. Jay was a victim of them and that is >why we are >trying to keep the internet free of the fenagling and corrupt >bosses. I hope you're >not trying to scare me with hacktivism and other retributions? Listen carefully. I am not trying to scare or threaten you. I am trying to establish that I am engaging in what I consider appropriate intellectual exchange, and I am trying to show how different oppression would be. >I am not >transferring the responsibility of for justifying those services to >the Haubens, >but I think they're more educated in that area than I am. >To finalize this useless debate, I can assure you of one thing, if >your intention >is to control this list, to mold it to your opinions, you will be >replied to and >challenged. >Luis If a participant in any list doesn't intend to have their opinions have some effect on the list, why bother to participate? Molding it to opinion can be a participatory, consensus process. But if you still want to challenge, I can think of a few responses from the "Dirty Harry" movie. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #479 ******************************