Netizens-Digest         Monday, April 28 2003         Volume 01 : Number 518

Netizens Association Discussion List Digest

In this issue:

       Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services
       Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
       [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:13:55 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Basic Services

At 8:01 PM -0400 4/27/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/26/03 6:50:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>Now, there is the real-world constraint that real projects require
>>real resources, and those resources have to be funded.  The funding
>>mechanisms are a legitimate matter of public policy discussion.
>>
>
>
>Why do we have to rehash this over and over again about the funding 
>pragmatism issue? 
>
>Also when we solve problems, can we then implement them immediately? 
>
>Look!  We solved a problem.  Greg mentioned creating _two_ lists. 
>Please read the posts over the last couple of days.  Problem solved. 
>Now let's move on.
>
>Also regarding this Netizen basic services.  I don't get it.  This 
>discussion is a waste of time.  Value in a communications network 
>comes from ubiquity.  You achieve value by providing incentives for 
>more users to subscribe to the network.
>
>Where is this paranoia coming from?  Realistically, people are not 
>going to be barred from what is generally regarded as 'basic 
>service.'  Why?  Because in order to hook your target audience to 
>services with a higher profit margin you have to 'prime the pump.' 
>If you ask me, it's all win-win for the consumer and the service 
>provider.

Larry,

What you are saying has merit for developed countries, where there is 
a telecommunications infrastructure and a competitive market. But 
what about developing countries? I have extended family in Sierra 
Leone. It's a major effort for them to make a telephone call.

Even in Eastern Europe, the telephone system was marginal for data. 
There are enough markets there to drive infrastructure creation, 
although it tends, for example, to be based much more on wireless 
than in North America.

>
>What is the purpose of a Netizen basic service definition?  This 
>will change as the technology does -- and technology is changing 
>damn rapidly.  I promise you, we will not be using email, the way we 
>know it today, always.  There will be other technologies that we 
>have not even considered that will evince themselves.
>
>It is more practical to discuss the means by which we can begin to 
>control or influence the market.

Again, the market model is fine for developed countries.

>  Let us discuss the incentives that must be provided to the 
>marketplace to achieve the desired end result for Netizens -- 
>Universal Access.  Technology is changing too fast.  How are you to 
>accurately qualify the particular demand for services beyond the 
>date of RFP publication?  It is fruitless to be more specific about 
>the services or applications that people need.
>
>You want proof of this?  Then take a look at the heterogeneous 
>service array provided to mobile telephony subscribers.  You have 
>phones that play music, video games, take pictures, provide 
>calendaring features, Internet access, etc.  What of these features 
>are necessary beyond voice?  I do not know.  No one knows.
>
>Focus on Universal Access in general -- not from a services or 
>application point of view.  Create a definition based solely on 
>bandwidth because we do not know what actual services people will 
>need in the future.  All we know is that they will need minimally to 
>communicate. 

I could live with bandwidth -- that's where I was going with 
services. But, again, on a worldwide basis, are video games, music 
and the like necessary for the social and political aspects of the 
Netizen concept? I'll admit I don't really like the distinction 
between network user and Netizen, but it actually seems to apply here.

>
>Let's work with the legislature to create strategic incentives for 
>the communications market to respond constructively to Netizen need. 
>Take a look at the local, state, and federal law and figure out how 
>to manipulate the forces to control the outcome.
>
>It all comes back to the same thing; Netizens need to get 
>politically savvy.  Stop balking and just play the game!

Legislative proposals that aren't identified with education, public 
safety, and political participation, but talk about enabling what are 
now seen as commercial services -- advanced wireless, gaming, etc., 
are probably dead on arrival. Believe me, as someone who earns his 
living through the telecommunications industry and has seen his 
income drop significantly, I'd love to see market stimuli.

But we are having serious trouble getting research funding for 
critical infrastructure areas, like scaling the Internet routing 
system. Research support that used to come from manufacturers or 
venture capitalists just isn't there anymore, but there are 
significant performance and security risks to the existing global 
structure.

>
>By the way, I am working on a legacy infrastructure valuation scheme 
>regarding the government buyout issue discussed a few weeks ago.
>
>Larry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Greg Skinner wrote:

> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> > Companies are *not* citizens. Companies have a profit motive and
> > a fiduciary obligation to serve their stockholders with a profit.
>
> Not all companies are for-profit or publicly held (by stockholders).
> Granted, that does not necessarily make them citizens (per se), but
> their employees could conceivably be called citizens.

But people at work are not called "citizens".

The concept of citizen has a different meaning.

People at work are considered "employees".

That is different.

In fact, probably most people (at least in the US) can't
be a citizen at work, as at work, one doesn't have any
rights unless you have a union.
>
> > I am a netizen.
>
> > I also work to be able to live.
>
> > I don't insist that my activity at work is part of my being a
> > netizen. In fact it is separate from my being a netizen.
>
> But would you feel the same way if you had a career that involved
> bringing Internet access to the underprivileged?

Yes I would feel the same way.

One is an employee at work or an employer, not a citizen.

A citizen involves civic participation and rights like the sovereignty
that one is supposed to have with regard to one's government under
the constitution (that is what is intended by the US constitution)

>  Even if you would
> feel the same way, would you expect that they would agree with you?

Yes, if people were honestly considering what a citizen means,
or looking at what a netizen means.

> It strikes me that many would feel offended that their contribution to
> the net would be considered distinct from netizenship just because
> they received a salary for their efforts.

People are employees or employers for their efforts.

The concept of citizenship and netizenship are very different
from being an employee.

How interesting that this line is being blurred this way.

>
> I see this as part of the problem on the list.

What is wrong with calling someone who first comes online a net user?


>  Someone can post
> suggestions that are criticized if they do not fit your notion of
> netizenship.

It seems that only those who are creating their own creation of
"netizen" and "netizenship" are encouraged lately on the list.

When I got online I was criticized by those who had been online
a while because I didn't understand some of what had been developed.

I welcomed that and learned and the people who informed me of
the obligations were welcoming of me as I was of them.

Here is seems the opposite.

Someone creates one's own perception of what a netizen is and
if someone points out that that is not how the concept arose
nor in general what it means, then this is called "critizing"
the person who created their own concept.

Why isn't such welcomed and examined.

Do you disagree Greg that the contributions to the Internet
are some of what have been so important in its development?

It was good that some governments paid researchers to do the
research on the Net for a number of years, and that should still
be happening.

And the contributions of many of the people were a contribution to
the Net.

But that doesn't make these people citizens of the Net or netizens.

If they lose their jobs then they lose their employment, not
their citizenship.

If people, regardless of who they work for in their employee, find
a way to contribute to the Net is substantial ways, and to support
the collaborative environment and the spreading of the communication
that the Net makes possible, then they are netizens.

Do you disagree?


  Thus instead of making progress finding practical ways
> to implement these suggestions, there are arguments that polarize
> people and impede progress.

One can say that they are trying to find a way to spread access for
all to become net users.

Or one can find a way to support those who are netizens and the ability
to be netizens.

These are not the same.

This distinction has a significance.

People who were at the 1994 NTIA online conference realized that
with the Acceptible Use Policies and Freenets where the use of
the net and the spreading of it for educational purposes was
encouraged and supported, people were being encouraged to be
contributors.

Once access was for pay, then people would expect to get service
and to be able to make money from the net. And this would be
a different net that was being developed.

What they predicted has come to pass.

But the contest is not yet over.

A net that is for telephony and television and radio,
is different from a net that is for collaborative discussion
and efforts.

Do you disagree?

Many people are very frustrated with the environment on the Net
in general these days.

Lots of people still try to contribute, but there is much more
support for "surfing" and looking for "information" than for
contributing something to make the Net a collorative environment.

It was different in 1992 when I first got on Usenet.

What I found online then was very precious.

It is still around, but much harder to find.

>
> --gregbo
>
>

Ronda

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now"

Hi,

The next issue of the Amateur Computerist is almost ready. I want again to
ask for input or comments on the article Netizens: Then and Now. Below is
the latest version.

Thanks.

Jay
- ------------------------
Netizens: Then and Now

Introduction:

This year marks the 10 year anniversary of the introduction online of
Michael's article "The Net and the Netizen". In honor of this anniversary
it seems appropriate to look at how this concept has inspired, described
or promoted netizenship around the world in the intervening years.

Search engines turn up almost 100,000 instances of the use of Netizens.
Individual searches combining different countries and "netizens" such as
"Netizens India" or "Netizens Korea", turn up a large number of hits in
each individual country. I want to consider but a few of the examples I
found.

Examples:

1) A paper written by Jane Long and Matthew Allen titled "Hacking the
Undernet" (The Australian Journal of Communication, vol 28 (3) 2001, pg
37-54) describes the process of privatization of the Internet as one of
invading it. They examine the concept of an online community. They
recognize that the networking architecture which sets a foundation for the
global commons, is often hidden from most researchers who focus only on
the online conversation. Long and Allen object to this limiting and
characterize it as a "narrowing" of the meaning and character of the
concept of community. They write:

"The narrowing of meaning and association of the term 'community' was also
influenced by a concurrent thread in Internet research concerning Usenet
newsgroups. As with initial forays into Irc research, earlier
ground-breaking research (principally by Hauben & Hauben, 1997) into
Usenet had identified the totality of newsgroup users as a form of
community, 'a world town meeting' or 'the Wonderful World of Usenet News'.
The Haubens also, however, emphasized the technical architectures through
which the overall Usenet system was maintained."

Long and Allen point to other notions of community that narrow the concept
to those on a single newsgroup, or those who use the Internet to support
relationships among people which already exist. In this context they
critique the notion of the Internet as a frontier with settlers.  They
write:

"Many problems have been identified with the individualist, libertarian,
and colonising ideologies inherent in the frontier myth (Barbrook &
Cameron, 1995; see also Werry, 1999). An additional concern, not normally
considered, is that describing cyberspace as a frontier 'presumes' the
existence of the space into which community developers and settlers, such
as Howard Rheingold, John Perry Barlow, Esther Dyson, George Gilder, and
the multitude of anonymous others, were to move.  However, these
self-styled settlers were preceded by another community, or set of
interlinked communities, comprising the engineers and scientists, hackers
and coders, system administrators ('sysadmins') and operators who
effectively created the virtual terrain later labeled 'the frontier'. Some
who utilise the frontier mythology regard these creators as the 'natives'
to be colonised or even driven off the frontier (Werry, 1999), but within
the metaphor, that still leaves open (or, rather, hidden) the identity of
those who created the cyber-frontier in the first place."

2) An article in a South Korean newspaper (Digital Chosunilbo - English
Edition) on March 3, 2003 similarly documented how the Internet was
making it possible for people to act as netizens. The Korean president
made a decision to support the U.S. war effort in Iraq. The newspaper
article reports that this decision "has stirred up a flurry of disputes
among the segments of society."

The article then describes the role of the Internet in this dispute:
"Much of the dispute is playing out on the Internet, where tempers
flared after President Roh's televised address on Thursday. A netizen
with the ID of 'small practice' wrote on the Web site Jinbonuri that
'President Roh violated the constitution by deciding to dispatch our
troops to Iraq.' He created a petition, to which 150 people quickly
added their names."

The article continued quoting from another web site:
"The Cheong Wa Dae Web site was swarming with thousands of posts and
emails criticizing the president's decision. One netizen said that the
president had betrayed his people.... But other voices supported Roh. A
netizen with the ID 'people' wrote that 'The war is abhorrent, but as an
ally of the U.S., we must not forget that 30,000 American soldiers are
in Korea to secure our nation'."

The article in a very small way documented online discussion among
Internet users in South Korea to discuss whether a policy of their
government was in the interests of the South Korean people.

The article only gave a few of the posts. The posts themselves, however,
are an important process that shows that governments are not the same as
the people of a country. Though the Internet now makes it possible for
governments to hear the views of their citizens on important policy
questions, most governments do not recognize the importance of these
voices. In general, they don't try to hear from the people of the
country before undertaking actions that they claim are in the best
interests of their citizens.

The Internet and netizens are changing this terrain, however. It is now
possible for governments to support the creation of online processes
where they can hear from their citizens and from netizens around the
world about the national and international response to their plans. That
is a more dynamic process than depending on the voices of a few to
determine the decisions that will affect the many.

3) Another article explored the importance of the concept of netizen for
the people of China. The paper by Jack Linchuan Qiu, about the Internet
and its role in China, describes a similar democratic vision for the role
of the Netizen in Chinese society. In his article, "Virtual Censorship in
China: Keeping the Gate Between Cyberspaces" (International Journal of
Communication Law and Policy issue 4, Winter 1999/2000), Qiu writes:

"The Internet, as the means of online political communication (OPC), is
not only a stimulant of cross-border interactions but also a tranquilizer
of academic debates.... Some hold that advanced technology tends to
democratization, while others contend it leads to demoralization....
Today's new medium is the Internet. It sets the academic agenda with its
interactivity, global accessibility, infinite channel capacity and other
pro-democracy properties. It engulfs the critics of technology, whose
voice nearly disappears...." (pg 1)

Qiu recognizes that the Internet is a platform for many different
activities. He defines netizens, however, as those who utilize the
Internet for online political communication. He writes:

"Politics and ideological content is usually outnumbered by discussions
about technology, economy, entertainment, sports and other topics. In this
sense, only a small portion of China's 4 million Internet users can be
called 'netizens", defined as those who engage in OPC." (pg 9-10)

Qiu observes that there are netizens from within and outside of China
who interact. He writes:

"A special group of netizens is the external users, who enter China's
virtual territory from the outside, playing a key role in linking China's
cyberspace with the global computer network. Most of them surf domestic
websites and exchange information with others as ordinary users."(pg 10)

Among these users he reports that "some directly oppose the rule of the
Chinese authorities distributing emails with overt anti-ccp content."

The Chinese government web sites, Qiu reports, are not influential, One
reason he proposes is that they "lack interactivity." He writes:
"The websites are designed to facilitate one-way indoctrination instead
of OPC interactions. Seldom do they reflect nonofficial opinions except
when they are hacked." (pg 10)

Discussing the advantages of technical background for Chinese users who
want to engage in online political communication, Qiu writes, "Technical
detours bypassing regulatory obstacles are also possible in the case of
the user who has more computer literacy." (pg 18) And he reports that
most Chinese netizens use pseudonyms to protect themselves from
penalties for expressing their views. (pg 16)

His article raises the question of whether the Chinese netizens will
prevail in their challenge to virtual censorship in China. "It remains
uncertain," Qiu writes, "whether virtual censorship in China will become
more menacing or they will collapse someday leaving online political
communication free at last among the Chinese netizens." (pg 20)

The URL for the journal's website is http://www.ijclp.org/ .

4) Looking for a definition of netizens, the online Miriam Webster
dictionary defines a netizen as "an active participant in the online
community of the Internet."

5) The Tech Target, "What Is" website, goes further offering two similar
meanings for "netizen".

1. "A citizen who uses the Internet as a way of participating in
political society (for example, exchanging views, providing information,
and voting).

2. "An Internet user who is trying to contribute to the Internet's use
and growth. As a powerful communications medium, the Internet seems to
offer great possibilities for social change. It also creates a new
culture and its own special issues, such as who shall have access to it.
The implication is that the Internet's users, who use and know most
about it, have a responsibility to ensure that is used constructively
while also fostering free speech and open access."
(http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition /0,,sid9_gci212636,00.html)

6) Chris Mueller, a graduate student, at the University of Berne, in a
thesis on "Electronic Networks and Democracy" (draft October 2002)
describes how the online process of users contributing to the net is
necessary for the net to be a democratic commons. He concludes that this
process needs the hard work of people online.
(http://www.soz.unibe.ch/ii/virt /euricom.pdf)

Those who do some of this hard work, are the online users that Michael
called the netizens.

7) "Netizens Unite", proclaims the title of the editorial in the Times
of India on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. The editorial appeared in the online
edition and also in the print edition on page 14. The editors of this
major newspaper in India write:

"America's threatened war against Iraq has divided the world. First
between the few friendly governments that support its unilateral action
and the many that don't. And second between officialdom on the one hand
and the people on the other. This later division is particularly
significant because it has pitted democratically elected governments that
back Washington against the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of their own
people. But none of this has made the slightest difference to president
Bush and his team of hawks."

The editorial documents that there was a basis for a peaceful process to
achieve the ends that the earlier UN resolution had advocated (whether
or not that was a legitimate ends, was not a question raised however).

Then the editorial asks, "But what can all those around the world who
oppose this mindless militarism do other than feel powerless?"

This is a question essential to Michaels' vision for the concept of the
netizen. What are the means for common people to have power over the
issues that affect their lives, including issues like whether one's
government makes war on another country?

The editorial then proposes a tentative way to look at this problem. The
editors write:

"We believe that one easily accessible way for world citizens to protest
against this war is literally a mouse click away. As inhabitants of an
increasingly globalised and borderless world, they should use the ultimate
instrument of supra-nationalism the Internet to register their opposition
and say no to the war: Netizens of the world unite, you've nothing to lose
but your chains of chauvinism. (To voice your views log on to
http://no-war .indiatimes.com)

The significance of the editorial is that it proposed that people
peacefully discuss their concerns and views. That such activity might
indeed be a weapon in the fight.

The editorial and then the online discussion by the Times of India are
not alone in seeing in the concept of Netizen as a way to be responsible
"inhabitants of an increasingly globalised and borderless world" which
the Internet has made possible.


8) It is not only researchers and writers online who have explored and
contributed to the development of the concept of Netizen. There is also
interest in the vision of the netizen in the online art community. For
example, in December of 2002 there appeared on the Net an announcement
of an art exhibit and competition in Rome, Italy. The exhibit was
curated by Valentina Tanni.

The curatrice writes (our translation):
"Netizens is a neologism. It is born from the union of two English
words, net and citizens and is used commonly to define the navigators of
the web. The expression, destined to a great future, was coined in the
book by Michael and Ronda Hauben, authors of an important book about the
social and psychological impact of the Net and of Net communication.
(Actually it is Michael who is responsible for identifying and
developing the concept of netizen -ed.)

Tanni continues:
"It is not enough to be connected to the Internet to be a Netizen. In
order to enter and to become part of this new, diffused society, it is
necessary to pay attention to it, to understand it and to try to improve
it, just as one must do to be part of communities offline. " (Catalogue
of the exhibit "Netizens: cittadini della rete" Sala 1, Rome, Italy,
December 2002., pg 14.)

9) Another writer commenting on the concept of Netizen, shortly after
the concept spread around the Internet, John Svedjedal, in his paper,
writes:
"the Net provides new opportunities for discussions, meetings, and the
exchange of ideas. As Michael Hauben... (has) recently remarked, the
Internet provides an 'expansion of what it means to be a social animal'
the democratic, helpful human being Michael Hauben has labeled the
Netizen...." ("Busy Being Born or Busy Dying: Networking the Net"
http://www.kb.se/Nvb/Svedjedal/busy14.html)

Conclusion:

These are but a few of the ways that the concept of netizen is being
understood and utilized online in the years since Michael first recognized
that there was something besides the technology of the Net that was
important. Among the Internet's users something new was developing,
something new was being born. This new phenomena is what Michael
recognized and he called those who were part of this new phenomena
"netizens". Whether the word had ever been used previously, is not
significant. What is significant is that there was a transformation
occurring. Among the users online, something new had been discovered.
This was that they were able to be part of a new society, and to play an
important role in the birth and development of this new society. This
isn't something idealistic or off in the future. And it isn't something
detached from the offline world and society. The netizen is at the
intersection between the old and the new, between the offline society, and
the online community. The actions that people described in 1992-1993 when
Michael posted his questions about the impact of the Net on people, gave
him an understanding of this new development. This understanding was
captured in a new concept, netizen, made up of the concepts of citizen and
net. And this concept, the new concept of the netizen has gone on to set a
foundation for a more active role for citizens and people online, for a
way that the Internet and its users can influence the old world, the old
institutions, so that the new world of a new millennium can come into
being. We are not there yet. Neither is the concept of netizen a concept
of "utopianism" as some have suggested.  Rather there is a living
practice, an experience, and a consciousness developing which is one of
the promises for a better world in the future.

------------------------------

End of Netizens-Digest V1 #518
******************************