Netizens-Digest Monday, April 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 520 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now" Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Re: [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:22:29 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > >I disagreed. > >Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does >something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being >a netizen. > >Would you say Howard that if your work at work were to work >for the government in making the parks safe, that your >work was part of being a citizen? Yes, I would. The job is clearly related to public service. I would argue, indeed, that someone in a dangerous job such as firefighter, soldier, rescue diver, etc., is demonstrating the ultimate in citizenship and responsibility. The official Coast Guard motto is "Semper Paratus" (always prepared), but the unofficial motto is "You have to go out. You don't have to come back." (referring to at-sea rescue). > > >So then is it you are saying, in my example above, that the >person who is paid for working in the park as a park employee >is being a citizen? Yes. And, indeed, in a capitalist society, one practicing free enterprise, ethically and legally, is exercising a basic right of citizenship. You cited the role of employees, and their not having rights -- what about a small business owner or individual professional? No rights there? > >I don't think it is political or ideological to acknowledge that >people can be citizens participating in the aspects of the >decisions of their life, and that that is different from >being employees while at work, as in the person who works >in the park. > >Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:25:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > > > >I disagreed. > > > >Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does > >something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being > >a netizen. > > > >Would you say Howard that if your work at work were to work > >for the government in making the parks safe, that your > >work was part of being a citizen? > > Yes, I would. The job is clearly related to public service. I would > argue, indeed, that someone in a dangerous job such as firefighter, > soldier, rescue diver, etc., is demonstrating the ultimate in But there is a difference between someone who works in a public service role and a citizen who may have to call that person who works in the public service role. For example, I worked in the office at the census for awhile. I was working in public service. It wasn't that I was being a citizen at the time. In the US someone is paid by one's employer to go to jury duty. That is being a citizen. Then one's employer is obligated not to penalize an employee if they need to fulfill their citizen obligations. Would you disagree? So a firefighter is working in the public service, but isn't acting as a citizen. The firefighter is there to serve the citizens and the businesses etc. > citizenship and responsibility. The official Coast Guard motto is > "Semper Paratus" (always prepared), but the unofficial motto is "You > have to go out. You don't have to come back." (referring to at-sea > rescue). > > > > > > >So then is it you are saying, in my example above, that the > >person who is paid for working in the park as a park employee > >is being a citizen? > > Yes. And, indeed, in a capitalist society, one practicing free > enterprise, ethically and legally, is exercising a basic right of > citizenship. You cited the role of employees, and their not having > rights -- what about a small business owner or individual > professional? No rights there? So being a business is an act of citizenship to you? Then there is no difference between civic participation and one's participation in one's business? I don't feel it is appropriate that employees don't have rights. It is just that they can be fired if they try to exercise them in the US and that isn't what rights are about. A small business owner is acting as a business person when at their job. That isn't acting as a citizen. Similarly a professional. All of those, however, can act as citizens when they exercise the efforts to do so. there are functions of business and functions of citizenship and they are not the same. Do you disagree? Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:30:46 +0000 (GMT) From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment Ronda Hauben wrote: > The original issue that Dan raised was that he had to be able > to live so the paid work he did was part of his being a netizen. > I disagreed. > Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does > something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being > a netizen. > Would you say Howard that if your work at work were to work > for the government in making the parks safe, that your > work was part of being a citizen? > I would say that was ones job and one would try to do one's > job as well as possible. > But it was after work hours that one's activity protecting > the park was part of being a citizen. Supposing someone joins the local police force because they feel a civic duty to protect others and prevent crime? I would call this part of citizenship. > For example if after work one is in the park and someone comes > to set up a stand to sell things and one says that that isn't > what a park is for. Well, this would depend on whether or not there had been laws passed that decided what was and was not appropriate use of the park. A police officer has the authority to remove someone acting in an unlawful manner. A non-police officer can report the unlawful activity to a police officer. Both are performing a civic duty. Now, I'll grant that there are people who just work for pay without any particular interest in anything else, but everyone is not like that. I think this is an area where your definitions of netizenship break down. - --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:48:24 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> > >> > >> >I disagreed. >> > >> >Now the issue is being changed to whether or not one does >> >something to collaborate as part of work, does that for being >> >a netizen. >> > >> >Would you say Howard that if your work at work were to work >> >for the government in making the parks safe, that your >> >work was part of being a citizen? >> >> Yes, I would. The job is clearly related to public service. I would >> argue, indeed, that someone in a dangerous job such as firefighter, >> soldier, rescue diver, etc., is demonstrating the ultimate in > >But there is a difference between someone who works in a public >service role and a citizen who may have to call that person >who works in the public service role. I don't see that being a useful difference. > >For example, I worked in the office at the census for awhile. > >I was working in public service. > >It wasn't that I was being a citizen at the time. > >In the US someone is paid by one's employer to go to jury duty. Actually, the employer isn't required to pay. > >That is being a citizen. > >Then one's employer is obligated not to penalize an employee if >they need to fulfill their citizen obligations. > >Would you disagree? I cannot agree or disagree, because I do not accept your distinction of citizenship apparently applying to only unpaid activity. > >So a firefighter is working in the public service, but isn't >acting as a citizen. The firefighter is there to serve the citizens >and the businesses etc. > >\ > > >> Yes. And, indeed, in a capitalist society, one practicing free >> enterprise, ethically and legally, is exercising a basic right of >> citizenship. You cited the role of employees, and their not having >> rights -- what about a small business owner or individual >> professional? No rights there? > >So being a business is an act of citizenship to you? Yes. Try doing so in North Korea. > >Then there is no difference between civic participation and >one's participation in one's business? Not necessarily. > >I don't feel it is appropriate that employees don't have rights. Employees have quite a number of rights, Federally enforced. > >A small business owner is acting as a business person when at >their job. That isn't acting as a citizen. Similarly a professional. Many physicians enter their profession because they want to heal, which I consider a social good. You are saying that if they do an appendectomy for no fee, they are being citizens, but if they charge for it, they are not? I regard it as good citizenship when someone acts in what is perceived to be the general good, whether they are paid for it or not. As far as I can tell, you wouldn't consider the President of the United States a citizen, yet the Constitution states citizenship requirements as a condition of eligibility. > >All of those, however, can act as citizens when they exercise the >efforts to do so. > >there are functions of business and functions of citizenship >and they are not the same. > >Do you disagree? I disagree completely. As far as I can tell, Ronda, your definition of netizenship is completely hostile to capitalism. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:11:38 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now" Whoops, I owe Jay some comments on the article. Some are editorial, others are just reactions. It's generally an engaging article. I thought point #5, offering two distinct but related senses of netizen, might usefully have appeared early in the essay, to create a frame. Incidentally, in light of the ongoing disagreement with Ronda, I find it noteworthy that the definitions in #4 and #5 -- "an active participant in the on-line community of the Internet"; "[a]n Internet user who is trying to contribute to the Internet's use and growth" -- make no distinction as to whether those efforts are subsidized by pay. [The definition in #5 is longer, but I believe the full definition supports my analysis.] Of course, there are many ways of using the Internet, for profit or otherwise, _without_ contributing to its development as a social medium. To paraphrase Howard, it seems to be a matter of intention, not compensation. >This year marks the 10 year anniversary of the introduction online of >Michael's article "The Net and the Netizen". The article would be more portable if Michael were identified by his full name on first reference. >1) [...] 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. This seems an excellent point. (Strangely punctuated, however.) >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). Very interesting. Incidentally, I think there's another side of the frontier myth -- a communitarian side with emphasis on barn-raisings, etc. - -- that still tends to obscure some of the obstacles to collective action. [If we can just have barn-raisings, who needs governments?] >2) [...]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'." I was grateful that this example of multi-sided discourse on the war preceded #7 (the Times of India editorial), which could be read as implying that anyone who supported the war must be a chauvinist and/or mindless militarist. I thought the whole discussion in #2 was fair, in that folks with different beliefs about representative government could generally accept the analysis. (I also thought the analysis in #7 was reasonably fair, given that the editorial is pretty, umm, emphatic.) >3) Another article explored the importance of the concept of netizen for >the people of China. [...] > >"The Internet, as the means of online political communication (OPC) [...] >[...] 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) Just an example of where the distinct definitions of netizen posed sort of a riddle. Maybe this is what inspired you to cite definitions in #4 and #5. >7) [...] >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). The parenthetical phrase is garbled ("a ends") and hard to follow. >This is a question essential to Michaels' vision for the concept of the >netizen. Just a typo. >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. Certainly true. It might be worthwhile to commission an article from Howard about PROMED for a future issue. >The netizen is at the >intersection between the old and the new, between the offline society, and >the online community. I like this sentence. I think it would be easier to read without the second comma. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:05:48 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment - --part1_14f.1e71176f.2bdf1bdc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/28/03 10:35:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > I don't think it is political or ideological to acknowledge that > people can be citizens participating in the aspects of the > decisions of their life, and that that is different from > being employees while at work, as in the person who works > in the park. > I disagree. This whole payment thing or compensation issue does not make any sense to me as a criteria for whether activity is netizenship or not because all leisure activity is subsidized by the earnings generated by the commercial activity that we pursue when we are at work. If you ask me, we, as citizens in a highly industrialized country as the United States, are being paid beyond the value of what services we provide, to further enjoy our leisure time so that we can take the net disposable income that we make when we work and employ it to drive the economy. By net disposable income, I am referring to the income after tax, for satisfaction of general debt service such as credit card payments and mortgage, and payment for utility usage, etc. With this understanding, I argue that most people, particularly the 'middle class,' are still working unofficially after they clock out. During their off-work time, the 'middle class' perpetually work by strategically plotting and then employing their net disposable income through consumption. Ultimately, whatever we do during our leisure time or off-work time is being paid for at least indirectly by some commercial entity. During this leisure time we are free to choose our boss, so to speak, were we to volunteer. Practically speaking, you know this is true. What does it matter if we are getting paid or not to contribute to the Net--as long as the contribution is occurring? I am getting paid for writing this post right now. We are all getting paid to be Netizens. Larry - --part1_14f.1e71176f.2bdf1bdc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/28/03 10:35:19 AM Eastern Dayligh= t Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

I don't think it is political o= r ideological to acknowledge that
people can be citizens participating in the aspects of the
decisions of their life, and that that is different from
being employees while at work, as in the person who works
in the park.


I disagree.

This whole payment thing or compensation issue does not make any sense to me= as a criteria for whether activity is netizenship or not because all leisur= e activity is subsidized by the earnings generated by the commercial activit= y that we pursue when we are at work. 

If you ask me, we, as citizens in a highly industrialized country as the Uni= ted States, are being paid beyond the value of what services we provide, to=20= further enjoy our leisure time so that we can take the net disposable income= that we make when we work and employ it to drive the economy. 

By net disposable income, I am referring to the income after tax, for satisf= action of general debt service such as credit card payments and mortgage, an= d payment for utility usage, etc.

With this understanding, I argue that most people, particularly the 'middle=20= class,' are still working unofficially after they clock out.  During th= eir off-work time, the 'middle class' perpetually work by strategically plot= ting and then employing their net disposable income through consumption.

Ultimately, whatever we do during our leisure time or off-work time is being= paid for at least indirectly by some commercial entity. 

During this leisure time we are free to choose our boss, so to speak, were w= e to volunteer.

Practically speaking, you know this is true.

What does it matter if we are getting paid or not to contribute to the Net--= as long as the contribution is occurring?

I am getting paid for writing this post right now.  We are all getting=20= paid to be Netizens.

Larry - --part1_14f.1e71176f.2bdf1bdc_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Comments requested: Slightly revised "Netizens: Then and Now" Hi Mark, Just a quick note to thank you for your thoughtful reading of "Netizens: Then and Now". The author of the article is Ronda. I will include some of your editorial suggestions. The article is one of 15 that will appear on this Thursday which would have been Michael's 30th birthday. This will be Vol 11 Number 2 of the Amateur Compterist. I will announce the URL when the issue is available. We have tried to gather some indication of the life of the concept of netizens in the 10 years since Michael posted "The Net and the Netizens" in 1993. I appreciate that you took the time and that you responded quickly. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #520 ******************************