Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 19 2003 Volume 01 : Number 531 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. Re: [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:10:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. Dear Netizen Digest subscriber, The majordomo digesting of netizens list postings had not been functioning since June. It has now been restored and you have received 6 digests: numbers 524 to 530. I particularly call your attention to Digest 524. That digest contains all the posts from June to September 2003. Digests 525 to 530 contain all the posts from late September to the present concerning the technical community's response to Verisign's SiteFinder capture of lookup requests to mistaken domans ending in the .com and .net, I would like to remind you that all the digests are available from majordomo@columbia.edu and also online at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/ I hope that there will be no more interruptions in your receiving of these digests. Please let me know if you have any questions about the netizens list or the netizens-digest. Thanks. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:17:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. Dear Netizen List Subscriber, The majordomo digesting of netizens list postings had not been functioning since June. It has now been restored and there are 6 new digests, numbers 524 to 530, bringing the digests up to date. I particularly call your attention to Digest_1-524. That digest contains all the posts from June to September 2003. Digests 525 to 530 contain all the posts from late September to the present concerning the technical community's response to Verisign's SiteFinder capture of lookup requests to mistaken domans ending in the .com and .net, I would like to remind you that all the digests are available from majordomo@columbia.edu and also online at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/ I hope that there will be no more interruptions in generating these digests. Please let me know if you have any questions about the netizens list or the netizens-digest. Thanks. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:52:36 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens List Digesting has been restored. Jay, Thanks. Incidentally, your subject line is perfectly accurate and reasonable, but I keep giggling at the generic thought of mailing list indigestion. I need caffeine or more sleep. :-) Howard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:18:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Hi, Recently, two articles appeared on the German online news journal Telepolis addressing a valuable question: Can the online community, defend the Internet from the various challenges to its continued spread and development? Some of those challenges may include censorship, spam and viruses, privatization, the spread of commercialization and the attacks on the public and collaborative Internet culture. Inherent in this question is the question of whether the democratic promise of the Internet is worth defending. And even more importantly, can it be successfully defended? The original articles were 1) Doing Democracy by Ronda Hauben. I have put an updated version of this article "The Internet: A New Model for Democracy or Replicating the Commercial Agenda?" at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/edemocracy1.txt 2) The Reality Behind E-democracy By John Horvath http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/15807/1.html which I have put at http://www.ais.org/~jrh/edemocracy2.txt These articles are a sort of debate. The Amateur Computerist is considering featuring them in its next issue. Perhaps readers of this list might want to read the articles and/or contribute to the discussion. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:37:16 -0400 From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Jay started his post by suggesting that the two articles address the question, "Can the online community, defend the Internet from the various challenges to its continued spread and development?" It didn't seem to me that they addressed this question very directly, although Ronda's perhaps more so. I might have said that the two articles address the question, "What is the nature of the Internet's contribution, if any, to the practice of democracy?" (If someone can improve on that formulation, please do.) Jay wrote that the articles are "a sort of debate," which nicely captures the feeling that the articles (1) stem from very different answers to the question as I have framed it (or, if you don't accept my framing, start from very different premises about the Internet generally) and (2) largely talk past each other rather than contradict each other. I think -- although I am professionally predisposed to think so -- that the key is the ambiguity of "democracy." In particular, it struck me that Ronda quotes, I think approvingly, Jesien's statement that begins, "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power, without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause. There is no question of governance there, nor the question of representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct participation." John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy that exists "without governments and power," with "no question or governance... nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think, precisely with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments. His emphasis on communication with elected officials no doubt is too narrow, but the question remains, how does (and how might) the practice of Netizenship influence what "democratic" governments actually do? Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:58:13 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) At 10:37 AM -0400 10/18/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote: >Jay started his post by suggesting that the two articles address the >question, "Can the online community, defend the Internet from the various >challenges to its continued spread and development?" It didn't seem to me >that they addressed this question very directly, although Ronda's perhaps >more so. I might have said that the two articles address the >question, "What is the nature of the Internet's contribution, if any, to the >practice of democracy?" (If someone can improve on that formulation, >please do.) > >Jay wrote that the articles are "a sort of debate," which nicely captures the >feeling that the articles (1) stem from very different answers to the question >as I have framed it (or, if you don't accept my framing, start from very >different premises about the Internet generally) and (2) largely talk past >each other rather than contradict each other. I think -- although I am >professionally predisposed to think so -- that the key is the ambiguity >of "democracy." From the perspective of a political scientist, do you think it clarifies the discussion not to use the generic term "democracy", but always one of the more specific terms "direct democracy" or "representative democracy"? > >In particular, it struck me that Ronda quotes, I think approvingly, Jesien's >statement that begins, > > "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of > citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the > Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power, > without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using > the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange > ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause. > There is no question of governance there, nor the question of > representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct > participation." The classic argument about direct democracy is one of logistics -- before electronic communications, it simply did not work in groups of more than a thousand or so. That argument is not as strong with the possibility of electronic voting, so another argument or set of arguments come up. Today's world, as well as allowing mechanisms for large-scale direct democracy, also is inundated with advertising and opinion molding. In a classic town meeting with direct democracy, advocates of a given position usually could be challenged before a vote, and real debate took place. It's awfully easy, in electronic communications, for a relatively small set of people to debate, and it's much less likely (based on current experience) to get participation beyond the vote. Even if every member of a large community did post a comment, at some point, it becomes logistically impractical to read every comment, reply, have reasoned debates, and then cast a thoughful vote. > >John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy that >exists "without governments and power," with "no question or governance... >nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think, precisely >with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments. His >emphasis on communication with elected officials no doubt is too narrow, >but the question remains, how does (and how might) the practice of >Netizenship influence what "democratic" governments actually do? A different scalability argument applies to communication with elected (or appointed) government officials. The good news is that with a smaller voting or regulating group, there is at least the _possibility_ of having manageable debate. There quickly comes a question if the representatives are simply there to convey the current opinion of constituents -- essentially driven, in modern terms, by focus groups and polls -- or whether the representatives are elected and trusted to present what they consider to be a consensus position of their constituents, with qualifications. These qualifications should have been examined closely at election time, because there will be times where a representative will vote his or her conscience, not necessarily the majority opinion's. _Profiles in Courage_, by John F. Kennedy (and ghostwriters) has good examples. Let me close with another question: is it necessarily advisable to have the fastest possible input of direct democracy, if the goal is to operate a government that actually has to carry out policies? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:59:30 -0400 From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd) Howard, [my text snipped] > From the perspective of a political scientist, do you think it > clarifies the discussion not to use the generic term "democracy", but > always one of the more specific terms "direct democracy" or > "representative democracy"? That's generally a step in the right direction. However, "direct democracy" tends to evoke decisionmaking by referendum, and that isn't (I think) what Ronda has in mind, either. Or, to put it another way, direct democracy could be a form of governance or government, whereas Jesien's statement seems to disavow both. (I don't mean to imply that Ronda agrees with everything Jesien says.) > >In particular, it struck me that Ronda quotes, I think approvingly, > Jesien's > >statement that begins, > > > > "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of > > citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the > > Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power, > > without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using > > the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange > > ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause. > > There is no question of governance there, nor the question of > > representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct > > participation." > > The classic argument about direct democracy is one of logistics -- > before electronic communications, it simply did not work in groups of > more than a thousand or so. It's worth noting that the authors of the Federalist seem to have been very suspicious of decisionmaking assemblies even smaller than that -- although I can't recall that they set a specific number. > That argument is not as strong with the possibility of electronic > voting, so another argument or set of arguments come up. Today's > world, as well as allowing mechanisms for large-scale direct > democracy, also is inundated with advertising and opinion molding. In > a classic town meeting with direct democracy, advocates of a given > position usually could be challenged before a vote, and real debate > took place. It's awfully easy, in electronic communications, for a > relatively small set of people to debate, and it's much less likely > (based on current experience) to get participation beyond the vote. > Even if every member of a large community did post a comment, at some > point, it becomes logistically impractical to read every comment, > reply, have reasoned debates, and then cast a thoughful vote. It's not _logistically_ impractical for every member of a large community to participate to the extent that he or she is prepared to cast a thoughtful vote. (I don't mean to twist your words here; I agree that it is impractical for every person to read every comment, etc. -- and various people have wrestled with these issues of scale.) Perhaps a more fundamental problem is what Downs wrote about in _An Economic Theory of Democracy_ (with respect to elections): since each individual can calculate that the probability of his or her vote determining the outcome is infinitesimal, there isn't much rational basis for putting much effort into forming thoughtful positions. > >John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy that > >exists "without governments and power," with "no question or governance... > >nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think, > precisely > >with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments. > His > >emphasis on communication with elected officials no doubt is too narrow, > >but the question remains, how does (and how might) the practice of > >Netizenship influence what "democratic" governments actually do? > > A different scalability argument applies to communication with > elected (or appointed) government officials. The good news is that > with a smaller voting or regulating group, there is at least the > _possibility_ of having manageable debate. There quickly comes a > question if the representatives are simply there to convey the > current opinion of constituents -- essentially driven, in modern > terms, by focus groups and polls -- or whether the representatives > are elected and trusted to present what they consider to be a > consensus position of their constituents, with qualifications. > > These qualifications should have been examined closely at election > time, because there will be times where a representative will vote > his or her conscience, not necessarily the majority opinion's. > _Profiles in Courage_, by John F. Kennedy (and ghostwriters) has good > examples. I hope I won't sound like a knee-jerk critic of elected officials when I suggest that sometimes representatives vote neither their conscience nor majority opinion. But _if_ more people were drawn into rich discussions on policy issues, the opinions that emerged would probably pose fewer challenges to elected officials consciences than slavish adherence to polls and focus groups would. (How many fewer? heck if I know.) I could elaborate on my point, but I'm not sure it is very important. > Let me close with another question: is it necessarily advisable to > have the fastest possible input of direct democracy, if the goal is > to operate a government that actually has to carry out policies? I don't really understand the point of the question, so I probably shouldn't try to answer it. I suspect many of us would agree that the most successful forms of deliberative dialogue on the Internet take place over days or weeks or months, so the "fastest possible input" is really not an issue for us. Dick Morris did write a rather horrid book called Vote.com, with a website by the same name, but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue that this is a good idea (and even Morris doesn't suggest that the results should be binding anytime soon, if ever -- I've forgotten the seamy details). Again, as far as I can tell, Ronda Hauben and Jesien really aren't advocating "direct democracy," so I doubt that our comments about direct democracy would cut much ice with them. In past personal conversations with Ronda, I've never did sort out how she would link democratic deliberation to actual decisionmaking, i.e. government and governance. Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:50:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Howard, > > [my text snipped] > > From the perspective of a political scientist, do you think it > > clarifies the discussion not to use the generic term "democracy", but > > always one of the more specific terms "direct democracy" or > > "representative democracy"? > > That's generally a step in the right direction. However, "direct democracy" > tends > to evoke decisionmaking by referendum, and that isn't (I think) what Ronda > has in > mind, either. Or, to put it another way, direct democracy could be a form of > governance or government, whereas Jesien's statement seems to disavow both. > (I don't mean to imply that Ronda agrees with everything Jesien says.) > Yes Mark it isn't that I or it seems Jesien are referring to decision making by referendum. The important part of what both Michael and Jesien referred to is the participatory nature of democracy. Actually, isn't that what democracy actually means as a term. It doesn't mean representation. > > >In particular, it struck me that Ronda quotes, I think approvingly, > > Jesien's > > >statement that begins, > > > > > > "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of > > > citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the > > > Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power, > > > without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using > > > the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange > > > ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause. > > > There is no question of governance there, nor the question of > > > representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct > > > participation." The point in this quote from Jesien's article is that netizenry "participate in something important". That is it seemed to me the point of the paper he did. > > > > The classic argument about direct democracy is one of logistics -- > > before electronic communications, it simply did not work in groups of > > more than a thousand or so. > > It's worth noting that the authors of the Federalist seem to have been very > suspicious of decisionmaking assemblies even smaller than that -- although > I can't > recall that they set a specific number. But the federalists didn't have the ability to have discussions online :-) In one of his articles Michael refers to Rousseau saying that it wasn't in his time possible most of the time to have a general assembly where all can participate (chapter 18 of Netizens http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120) And Michael refers to Mill's idea of freedom of the press as the needed alternative to Rousseau's idea of a general assembly. Now we have a means for many more people to have access to the Net than ever before had the ability to contribute to the press. > > > That argument is not as strong with the possibility of electronic > > voting, so another argument or set of arguments come up. Today's > > world, as well as allowing mechanisms for large-scale direct > > democracy, also is inundated with advertising and opinion molding. In > > a classic town meeting with direct democracy, advocates of a given > > position usually could be challenged before a vote, and real debate > > took place. In the discussion on the website of the "Times of India" in response to their editorial "Netizens Unite" I would estimate about 1000 people participated. Also my experience online at times is that one can say something, have many people disagree with one, and then come back to the discussion two weeks later and have the discussion centering on the point that was made two weeks earlier. In the two weeks time the discussion was such that people are treating the idea with seriousness, even though they didn't do that initially. Chuq (one of the folks on early Usenet) has commented about that in some of his discussion of how ideas that were not greeted initially in a way that welcomed then, had a way of being treated seriously even if the person who first proposed them didn't stick around for the discussion. > >It's awfully easy, in electronic communications, for a > > relatively small set of people to debate, and it's much less likely > > (based on current experience) to get participation beyond the vote. > > Even if every member of a large community did post a comment, at some > > point, it becomes logistically impractical to read every comment, > > reply, have reasoned debates, and then cast a thoughful vote. > But it isn't a matter of reading every comment, unless one wants to. Rather discussion is dynamic, so there will be people that will read and think about someone's comment and that will influence the second person. The second person will build on what the first person said, and so on. > > > >John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy that > > >exists "without governments and power," with "no question or governance... > > >nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think, > > >precisely > > >with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments. This is a helpful clarification. The issue of government, however, can't be understood if one separates it from the citizens who are part of the governing entity. The government, whether it consciously recognizes it or not, is connected with those who it is claiming to govern in the name of. (...) > > > > A different scalability argument applies to communication with > > elected (or appointed) government officials. The good news is that > > with a smaller voting or regulating group, there is at least the > > _possibility_ of having manageable debate. There quickly comes a > > question if the representatives are simply there to convey the > > current opinion of constituents -- essentially driven, in modern > > terms, by focus groups and polls -- or whether the representatives > > are elected and trusted to present what they consider to be a > > consensus position of their constituents, with qualifications. > > All of this is outmoded, however, as there is now the possibility of interactive discussion, rather than "focus groups and polls". The interactive discussion is a dynamic process that can produce something different from what one started with. While polls concern themselves with the questions that are formulated, rather than with evolving some understanding of those questions. (...) > > I hope I won't sound like a knee-jerk critic of elected officials when > I suggest that > sometimes representatives vote neither their conscience nor majority opinion. > And neither of the two alternatives match the alternative that would be the result of a reasoned discussion with diversity of opinion considered. > > > Let me close with another question: is it necessarily advisable to > > have the fastest possible input of direct democracy, if the goal is > > to operate a government that actually has to carry out policies? There is often time to have discussion before some decision is to be made. And that considered discussion has the basis to lead to better decisions. > > Again, as far as I can tell, Ronda Hauben and Jesien really aren't > advocating "direct democracy," so I doubt that our comments about direct > democracy would cut much ice with them. In past personal conversations with > Ronda, I've never did sort out how she would link democratic deliberation > to actual > decisionmaking, i.e. government and governance. > I guess I don't quite understand, Mark, why you find it so hard to think of how democratic discussion will be able to affect actual decision making of government and governance. The development of the Internet is a model in fact of where people would discuss differences and in the process work out the problems so that good decision making could take place. That has at times been my experience as well online. For example, there was a discussion about creating a newsgroup that would be the newsgroup for people in the press to look at if they wanted to write about Usenet. It was to be a moderated group. Through the discussion of why it might be a problem to have a moderated group as a place to refer journalists to, as then whoever did the moderating would have the ability to determine what journalists read or didn't read, the discussion evolved to the point where what was created was one moderated group for announcements but an unmoderated group for discussion. In one of my papers about the history of Usenet, I described how Mark Horton asked people if they felt that the name of Usenet should be changed. He was going to put out an update of the Usenet software. He asked people to participate in the discussion. There was a long and considered discussion and afterwards it was clear it would be better not to change the name of Usenet. The point of discussion where differences are explored and discussed is that it becomes a dynamic process that has the basis to solve a problem. Ronda ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #531 ******************************