💾 Archived View for gemini.theuse.net › texts › zines › The_Amateur_Computerist › ACN7-2.txt captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TTTTT H H EEEE |
| T H H E |
| T HHHH EEE |
| T H H E |
| T H H EEEE |
| |
| A M M A TTTTTTT EEEEE U U RRRR |
| A A M M M M A A T E U U R R |
| A A M M M M A A T EEE U U RRRR |
| AAAAA M MM M AAAAA T E U U R R |
| A A M M A A T EEEEE UUU R R |
| |
| CCCC OO MM MM PPP U U TTTTT EEEE RRRR III SSS TTTTT |
| C O O M M M P P U U T E R R I S T |
| C O O M M M PPPP U U T EEE RRRR I S T |
| C O O M M P U U T E R R I S T |
| CCCC OO M M P UU T EEEE R R III SSS T |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Winter 1997 Internet: Transforming Society Volume 7 No 2 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Communities will design systems to perform various functions
intellectual, economic and social and the systems in turn
undoubtedly will have profound effects in shaping the pattern
of human life." Robert Fano and Fernando Corbat"
Table of Contents
[1] Power Tools of Our Times . . . . . . . . . 3,500 bytes
[2] Effect of Net on Professional News Media. . 37,200 bytes
[3] Report from INET'96 Part I . . . . . . .. . 14,500 bytes
[4] CDA Decision (Excerpts) . . . . . . . . . . 15,200 bytes
[5] E-mail Evangeladdict. . . . . . . . . . . . 13,300 bytes
[6] Culture and Communication . . . . . . . . . 17,300 bytes
[7] Online Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,400 bytes
[8] Report from INET'96 Part II . . . . . . . . 9,300 bytes
[9] Internet Impact on Daily Lives? . . . . . . 3,200 bytes
[10] FCC Submission on Universal Service . . . . 15,900 bytes
[11] Letter to the Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400 bytes
[12] Free-Nets and Politics of Community . . . . 38,500 bytes
[13] Broadsides for Our Day. . . . . . . . . . . 45,700 bytes
[14] Genora (Johnson) Dollinger (1913-1995). . . 6,300 bytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Power Tools of Our Times
With this issue of the Amateur Computerist we will begin the
examination of how the Net and Netizens are changing our world. Two decades
ago, the pioneers of time-sharing recognized that the computer was an
intellectual tool that would help humans to think and do mental labor in
ways similar to how power tools, created during the early industrial
revolution, helped humans to do physical labor. They felt that the computer
would have a profound impact on the future much as mechanical tools had a
profound impact on the past. However, to make such intellectual tools
available to all posed a difficult problem as computers at that time were
large and expensive and operated in batch mode. To begin to solve this
problem, the pioneers recognized the need to create a new form of computer
organization, that of the time-sharing of computers. Through the linking of
individuals and computers via a time-sharing operating system, the vision
of the networking of computers came into view. From that vision and
experimentation, a global computer network grew up and spread around the
world. The Net and those contributing to the development of the Net, the
Netizens, are today a reality.
With this reality, however, come new challenges for our time. In this
issue of the Amateur Computerist, we begin to explore the impact that the
Net and Netizens are having on society today. This impact raises the
question of what are the challenges that these developments bring to the
fore.
Two important events helped to suggest this topic for our issue: the
first was the passage in February 1996 of the Telecommunications Act by the
U.S. Congress including the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provided
means for the U.S. government to censor content on the Internet. That
development, akin in ways to the Stamp Act passed by the British Parliament
to censor independent thought and printing in the U.S. colonies in the
middle of the 18th Century, was met with an active resistance, both on the
Internet and off. On June 13, 1996, the federal district court of
Philadelphia wrote a decision granting an injunction against enforcement of
the CDA. In its decision, the court wrote an eloquent statement about the
impact of the Internet as an important new means of mass communication.
The second important event precipitating this issue of the Amateur
Computerist was the conference of the Internet Society held in Montreal,
Canada, in June, 1996. The topic of INET'96 was "Internet: Transforming Our
Society Now." A number of papers were presented at the conference, and in
general there was discussion among those who attended, examining and
recognizing the social impact of the Internet.
This issue of the Amateur Computerist gathers a series of articles
which report on these important events, and which examine various aspects
of this social development. We welcome comments on any of the articles or
on the topic for future issues. From these events and articles we hope to
demonstrate how the Net and Netizens are an important development of our
time. For a future issue, we would like to take up the challenges this new
development poses and welcome articles and contributions on that subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media:
The USENET News Collective
The Man-Computer News Symbiosis
by Michael Hauben
hauben@columbia.edu
"The archdeacon contemplated the gigantic cathedral for a time in
silence, then he sighed and stretched out his right hand towards
the printed book lying open on his table and his left hand towards
Notre Dame, and he looked sadly from the book to the church:
'Alas,' he said, 'this will kill that.'"
Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris
I. Media criticism
Will this kill that? Will the new online forms of discourse dethrone
the professional news media?
The French writer Victor Hugo observed that the printed book rose to
replace the cathedral and the church as the conveyor of important ideas in
the 15th century. Will Usenet and other young online discussion forums
develop to replace the current news media? Various people throughout
society are currently discussing this question.
The role of modern journalism is being reconsidered in a variety of
ways. There are journalists and media critics, like the late Professor
Christopher Lasch, who have challenged the fundamental premises of
professional journalism. There are other journalists like Wall Street
Journal reporter Jared Sandberg, who cover an online beat, and are learning
quickly about the growing online public forums. These two approaches are
beginning to converge to make it possible to understand the changes in the
role of the media in our society brought about by the development of the
Internet and Usenet.
Media critics like Christopher Lasch have established a theoretical
foundation that makes it possible to critique the news media and challenge
the current practice of these media. In "Journalism, Publicity, and the
Lost Art of Argument," Lasch argued: "What democracy requires is public
debate, and not information. Of course, it needs information, too, but the
kind of information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular
debate."(1)
Applying his critique to the press, Lasch wrote: "From these
considerations it follows the job of the press is to encourage debate, not
to supply the public with information. But as things now stand the press
generates information in abundance, and nobody pays any attention."(2)
Lasch explained that more and more people are getting less and less
interested in the press because, "Much of the press now delivers an
abundance of useless, indigestible information that nobody wants, most of
which ends up as unread waste."(3)
Reporters like Jared Sandberg of the Wall Street Journal, on the other
hand, recognize that more and more of the information that the public is
interested in, is starting to come from people other than professional
journalists. In an article about the April 1995 Oklahoma Federal Building
explosion, Sandberg writes: "In times of crisis, the Internet has become
the medium of choice for users to learn more about breaking news, often
faster than many news organizations can deliver it."(4)
People curious and concerned about relatives and others present on the
scene turned to the Net to find out timely information about survivors and
to discuss the questions raised by the event. Soon after the explosion, it
was reported and discussed live on Internet Relay Chat, in newsgroups on
Usenet such as alt.current-events.amfb-explosion and on various Web sites.
Sandberg noted that many logged onto the Internet to get news from first-
hand observers rather than turning on the TV to CNN or comparable news
sources.
Along with the broader strata of the population that has begun to
report and discuss the news via the Internet and Usenet, a definition of
who is a media critic is developing. Journalists and media critics like
Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill present such a broader definition
of media critics when they write, "Everyone who watches television, listens
to a radio or reads passes judgment on what they see, hear or read."(5)
Acknowledging the public's discon tent with the traditional forms of the
media, they note that, "the evaluations of the media put forward by the
public are grim and getting worse."(6)
Other journalists have written about public criticism of the news
media. In his article, "Encounters Online", Thomas Valovic recognizes some
of the advantages inherent in the new online form of criticism. Unlike old
criticism, the new type "fosters dialogue between reporters and
readers."(7) He observes how this dialogue "can subject reporters to
interrogations by experts that undermine journalists' claim to speak with
authority."(8)
Changes are taking place in the field of journalism, and these changes
are apparent to some, but not all journalists and media critics. Tom
Goldstein, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley Journalism
School, observes that change is occurring, but the results are not fully
understood.(9)
II. Examining the role of Internet/Usenet and the press
There are discussions online about the role of the press and the role
of online discussion forums. The debate is active. There are those who
believe the printed press is here to stay, while others contend that
interactive discussion forums are likely to replace the authority of the
print news media. Those who argue for the dominance of the online media
present impassioned arguments. Their comments are much more persuasive than
those who defend the traditional role of the print media as something that
is handy to read over breakfast or on the train. In a newsgroup thread
discussing the future of print journalism, Gloria Stern stated: "My
experience is that I have garnered more information from the Internet than
I ever could from any newspaper. Topical or not, it has given me community
that I never had before. I touch base with more informed kindred souls than
any tonnage of paper could ever bring me."(10)
Regularly, people are commenting on how they have stopped reading
newspapers. Even those who continue to read printed newspapers note that
Usenet has become one of the important sources for their news. For example,
a user wrote: "I do get the NY Times every day, and the Post and the
Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal (along with about 100 other
hard-copy publications), and I still find Usenet a valuable source of in-
depth news reporting."(11)
More and more people on Usenet have announced their discontent with
the traditional one-way media, often leading to their refusal to seriously
read newspapers again. In a discussion about a Time magazine article about
the Internet and Usenet, Elizabeth Fischer wrote: "The point of the whole
exercise is that for us, most of us, paper media is a dead issue (so to
speak)."(12)
In the same thread, Jim Zoes stated the challenge posed by the online
media for reporters: "This writer believes that you (the traditional press)
face the same challenge that the monks in the monastery faced when
Gutenberg started printing Bibles."(13)
Describing why the new media represent such a formidable foe, Zoes
continued: "Your top-down model of journalism allows traditional media to
control the debate, and even if you provide opportunity for opposing views,
the editor always had the last word. In the new paradigm, not only do you
not necessarily have the last word, you no longer even control the flow of
the debate."(14)
He concludes with his understanding of the value of Usenet to society:
"The growth and acceptance of e-mail, coupled with discussion groups
(Usenet) and mail lists provide for a 'market place of ideas' hitherto not
possible since perhaps the days of the classic Athenians."(15)
Others present their views on a more personal level. One poster
writes: "I will not purchase another issue of Newsweek. I won't even glance
through their magazine if it's lying around now given what a shoddy job
they did on that article."(16)
Another explains: "My husband brought [the article] home for me to
read and [I] said, 'Where is that damn follow up key? ARGH!' I've pretty
much quit reading mainstream media except when someone puts something in
front of me or I'm riding the bus to work."(17)
These responses are just some of the recent examples of people voicing
their discontent with the professional news media. The online forum
provides a public way of sharing this discontent with others. It is in
sharing ideas and understandings with others with similar views that
grassroots efforts begin to attempt to change society.
While some Net users have stopped reading the professional news media,
others are interested in in fluencing the media to more accurately portray
the Net. Many are critical of the news media's reporting of the Internet,
and other events. Users of the Internet are interested in protecting the
Internet. They do this by watch-dogging politicians and journalists.
Concern with the coverage of the Internet in the press comes from first-
hand experience with the Internet. One Net-user expressing such
dissatisfaction writes: "The Net is a special problem for reporters,
because bad reporting in other areas is protected by distance. If someone
reports to the Times from Croatia, you're not going to have a better source
unless you've been there (imagine how many people in that part of the world
could correct the reports we read). All points of Usenet are equidistant
from the user and the reporter. We can check their accuracy at every move.
And what do we notice? Not the parts that the reporter gets right, just the
errors. And Usenet is such a complete culture that no reporter, absent some
form of formal training or total immersion in the Net, is going to get it
all right."(18)
Another online critic writes: "It's scary when you actually are
familiar with what a journalist is writing about. Kinda punches a whole
bunch of holes in the 'facts'. Unfortunately it's been going on for a
looong time we, the general viewing public, just aren't up to speed on the
majority of issues. That whole 'faith in media' thing. Yick. I can't even
trust the damn AP wire anymore after reading an enormous amount of total
crap on it during the first few hours of the Oklahoma bombing."(19)
In Usenet's formation of a community, that com munity has developed
the self-awareness to respond to and reject an outside description of the
Net. If the Net was just the telephone lines and computer infra structure
making up a machine, that very machine could not object and scold
journalists for describing it as a spreader of pornography or a bomb-
production press. Wesley Howard believes that the critical on line
commentary is having a healthy effect on the press: "The coverage has
become more accurate and less sloppy in its coverage of the Net because it
(the Net) has become more defined itself from a cultural point of view.
Partly because of growth and partly because of what the media was saying
fed debates and caused a firmer definition within itself. This does not
mean the print media was in any way responsible for the Net's self
definition, but was one influence of many."(20)
Another person, writing from Japan, believed that journalists should
be more responsible, urging that "all journalists should be forced to have
an e-mail address." He explained: "Journalists usually have a much bigger
audience than their critics. I often feel a sense of helplessness in trying
to counter the damage they cause when they abuse their privilege. Often it
is impossible even to get the attention of the persons responsible for the
lies and distortions."(21)
Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists provide a media where people are
in control. People who are online understand the value of this control and
are trying to articulate their understandings. Some of this discussion is
being carried on on Usenet. Having the ability to control the mass media
also encourages people to try to affect other media. The proposal to
require print journalists to acquire and publicize an e-mail address is an
example of how online users are trying to apply the lessons learned from
the online media to change the print media.
III. People as critics: the role the Net is playing and will play in the
future
People online are excited, and this is not an exaggeration. The
various discussion forums connected to the global computer communications
network (or the Net) are the prototype for a new public form of
communication. This new form of human communication will either supplement
the current forms of news or replace them. One person on a newsgroup
succinctly stated: "The real news is right here. And it can't get any newer
because I watch it as it happens."(22)
The very concept of news is being reinvented as people come to realize
that they can provide the news about the environment they live in; that
people can contribute their real-life conditions and this information
proves worthwhile for others. The post continued: "As other segments of
society come online, we will have less and less need for some commercially
driven entity that gathers the news for me, filters it, and then delivers
it to me, hoping fervently that I'll find enough of interest to keep paying
for it."(23)
Such sentiment represents a fundamental challenge to the professional
creation and dissemination of news. The online discussion forums allow open
and free discourse. Individuals outside of the traditional power structures
are finding a forum in which to contribute, where those contributions are
welcomed. Describing the importance of the open forum available on the Net,
Dolores Dege wrote: "The most important and eventually most powerful aspect
of the Net will be the effect(s) of having access to alternative viewpoints
to the published and usually (although not always either intentionally or
consciously) biased local news media. This access to differing 'truths' is
similar to the communication revolution which occurred when the first
printing presses made knowledge available to the common populace, instead
of held in the tight fists of the clergy and ruling classes."(24)
This change in who makes the news is also apparent to Keith Cowing:
"How one becomes a 'provider' and 'receiver' of information is being
totally revamped. The status quo hasn't quite noticed yet this is what is
so interesting."(25)
While this openness also encourages different conspiracy theorists and
crackpots to write messages, their contributions are scrutinized as much as
any other posting. This uncensored environment leads to a sorting out of
mis-truths from thoughtful convictions. Many people online keep their wits
about them and seek to refute half-truths and lies. A post from Australia
notes that it is common to post refutations of inaccurate posts: "One of
the good things about Usenet is the propensity of people to post
refutations of false information that others have posted."(26)
As the online media are in the control of many people, no one person
can come online and drastically alter the flow or quality of discussion. The
multiplicity of ideas and opinions make Usenet and mailing lists the
opposite of a free-for-all.
IV. Qualities of this new medium
A common assumption of the ethic of individualism is that the
individual is in control and is the prime mover of society. Others believe
that it is not the individual who is in control, but that society is being
controlled by people organized around the various large corporations that
own so much of our society whether those corporations are the media,
manufacturers, etc. The global computer communications networks currently
allow uncensored expression from the individual at a bottom rung of society.
The grassroots connection of people around the world and in local
communities based on common interests is an important step in bringing
people more control over their lives. Lisa Pease wrote in alt.journalism:
"The net requires no permissions, no groveling to authority, no editors to
deal with no one basically to say 'no don't say that.' As a result, far
more has been said here publicly than has probably been said in a hundred
years about issues that really matter political prisoners, democratic
uprisings, exposure of disinformation this is what makes the net more
valuable than any other news source."(27)
Similar views are expressed by others about the power of the Internet
to work in favor of people rather than commercial conglomerates: "The
Internet is our last hope for a medium that will enable individuals to
combat the overpowering influence of the commercial media to shape public
opinion, voter attitudes, select candidates, influence legislation,
etc."(28)
People are beginning to be empowered by the open communications the
online media provide. This empowerment is beginning to lead toward more
active involvement by people in the societal issues they care about.
V. The Pentium story
In discussions about the future of the online media, people have
observed how Usenet makes it possible to challenge the privileges inherent
in the traditional news media. John Pike started a thread describing the
challenge the Net presents to the former content providers: "To me this is
the really exciting opportunity for Usenet, namely that the professional
content providers will be directly confronted with and by their audience.
The prevailing info-structure privileges certain individuals by virtue of
institutional affiliation. But cyberspace is a far more meritocractic
environment the free exchange of ideas can take place regardless of
institutional affiliation."(29)
Pike continues by arguing that online forums are becoming a place where
"news" is both made and reported, and thus traditional sources are often
scooped. He writes: "This has tremendously exciting possibilities for
democratizing the info-structure, as the 'official' hardcopy implementations
are increasingly lagging cyberspace in breaking news."(30)
An example of news being made online occurred when Intel, the computer
chip manufacturer, was forced to recall faulty Pentium chips because of the
online pressure and the effect of that pressure on computer manufacturers
such as IBM and Gateway. These companies put pressure on Intel because
people using Usenet discovered problems with the Pentium. The online
discussion led to people becoming active and getting the manufacturers of
their computers, and Intel to fix the problems.
In the article "Online Snits Fomenting Public Storms," Wall Street
Journal reporters Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg commented: "Some industry
in siders say that had the Pentium flub occurred five years ago, before the
Internet got hot and the media caught on, Intel might have escaped a public
flogging and avoided a costly recall."(31)
Buried in the report is the acknowledgment that the traditional press
would not have caught the defect in the Pentium chip, but that the online
media forced the traditional media to respond. The original reporting about
the problem was done in the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.intel and further
online discussion took place in that newsgroup and other newsgroups and on
Internet mailing lists. The Wall Street Journal reporters recognized their
debt to news that people were posting online to come up with a story that
dealt with a major computer company and with the realworld role that Usenet
played.
In another article in the Wall Street Journal, reporter Fara Warner
focused on the impact of the online news on Intel. "[Intel] offered
consumers a promise of reliability and quality, and now that promise has
been called into question," she writes, quoting the CEO of a consulting
firm.(32) The people who did this questioning were the users of the
computers with the faulty chips. Communicating about the problem online,
these users were able to have an impact not otherwise possible. Ziegler and
Sandberg noted that the discussions were online rather than in "traditional
public forums like trade journals, newspapers or the electronic media."(33)
Online users were able to work together to deal with a problem, instead of
depending on other forums traditionally associated with reporting
dissatisfaction with consumer goods. After all of the criticisms, Intel had
to replace faulty chips to keep their reputation viable. The Wall Street
Journal, New York Times and other newspapers and magazines played second
fiddle to what was happening online. In their article, Ziegler and Sandberg
quote Dean Tom Goldstein: "It's absolutely changing how journalism is
practiced in ways that aren't fully developed."(34)
These journalists acknowledge that the field of journalism is changing
as a result of the existence of the online complaints. The online connection
of people is forming a large and important social force.
An Australian reporter, John Hilvert, commented on the value of being
online: "[Usenet] can be a great source of leads about the mood of the Net.
The recent GIF-Unisys-CompuServe row and the Intel Pentium bug are examples
of Usenet taking an activist and ed ucative role."(35)
Although it is hard to rely on any single piece of information, Usenet
is not about ideas in a vacuum. Usenet is about discussion and discourse.
The great number and range of the unedited posts on Usenet bring up the
question of whether editors are needed to deal with the amount of
information. Discussing the need to take time to deal with the growing
amount of information, a post on alt.internet.media-coverage explained, "The
difference being that for the first time in human history, the general
populace has the ability to determine what it finds important, rather than
relying on the whims of those who knew how to write, or controlled the
printing presses. It means that we as individuals are going to have to deal
with sifting through a lot of information on our own, but in the end I
believe that we will all benefit from it."(36)
Such posts lead to the question of what is meant by the notion of the
general populace and a popular press. The point is important, as those who
are on the Net make up but a small percentage of the total population of
either the United States or the world. However, that online population
makes up a significant body of people connecting to each other online.(37)
The fast rate of growth also makes one take note of the trends and
developments. Defining what is meant by 'general populace and a popular
press' the post continues: "By general populace, I mean those who can
actually afford a computer, and a connection to the Net, or have access to a
public terminal. As computer prices go down, the amount of people who fit
this description will increase. At any rate, comparing the 5-10 million
people with Usenet access, to the handful who control the mass media shows
that even in a nascent stage, Usenet is far more the 'people's voice' than
any media conglomerate could ever be."(38)
Computer pioneers like Norbert Wiener, J.C.R. Licklider and John
Kemeny discussed the need for man-computer symbiosis to help humans deal
with the growing problems of our times.(39) The online discussion forums
provide a new form of man-computer symbiosis. They are helpful intellectual
exercises. It is healthy for society if all members think and make active
use of their brains and Usenet is conducive to thinking. It is not the role
of journalists to provide answers. Even if everybody's life is busy, what
happens when they come to depend on the opinions and summaries of others as
their own? Usenet is helping to create a mass community that works
communally to aid the individual to come to his or her own opinions.
Usenet works via the active involvement and thoughtful contributions
of each user. The Usenet software facilitates the creation of a community
whose thought processes can accumulate and benefit the entire community. The
creation of the printed book helped to increase the speed of the
accumulation of ideas. Usenet now speeds up that process to help accumulate
the thoughts of the moment. The resulting discussion seen on Usenet could
not have been produced beforehand as the work of one individual. The bias
or the point of view of any one individual or group is no longer presented
as the whole truth.
Karl Krueger describes some of the value of Usenet in a post: "Over
time, Usenetters get better at being parts of the Usenet matrix because
their own condensations support Usenet's, and this helps other users. In a
way, Usenet is a 'meta-symbiont' with each user the user is a part of Usenet
and benefits Usenet (with a few exceptions), and Usenet includes the user
and benefits him/her."(40)
Krueger points out how experienced Usenet users contribute to the
Usenet community. He writes: "As time increases normally, the experienced
Usenet user uses Usenet to make himself more knowledgeable and successful.
Experienced users also contribute back to Usenet, primarily in the forms of
conveying knowledge (answering questions, compiling FAQs), conveying
experience (being part of the environment a newbie interacts with), and
protecting Usenet (upholding responsible and non-destructive use, canceling
potentially damaging SPAMs, fighting 'newsgroup invasions', etc.)."(41)
As each new user connects to Usenet, and learns from others, the Usenet
collective grows and becomes one person richer. Krueger continues: "Provided
that all users are willing to spend the minimal amount of effort to gain
some basic Usenet experience then they can be added to this loop. In Usenet,
old users gain their benefits from other old users, while simultaneously
bringing new users into the old-users group to gain benefits."(42)
The collective body of people, assisted by the Usenet software, has
grown larger than any individual newspaper. As people continue to connect to
Usenet and other discussion forums, the collective global population will
contribute back to the human community in this new form of news.
VI. Conclusion
Newspapers and magazines are a convenient form for dealing with
information transfer. People have grown accustomed to reading newspapers and
magazines wherever and whenever they please. The growing dissatisfaction
with the print media is more with the content than with the form. There is a
significant criticism that the current print media do not allow for a
dynamic response or follow-up to the articles in hand. One possible
direction would be toward online distribution and home or on-site printing
of online discussion groups. This would allow for the convenience of the
traditional newspaper and magazine form to be connected to the dynamic
conversation that online Netnews allows. The reader could choose at what
point in the conversation or how much of the discussion to make a part of
the printed form. But this leaves out the element of interactivity. Still,
it could be a temporary solution until the time when ubiquitous slate
computers with mobile networks would allow the combination of a light, easy
to handle screen, with a continuous connection with the Internet from any
location.
Newspapers could continue to provide entertainment in the form of
crossword puzzles, comics, classified ads, and entertainment sections (e.g.,
entertainment, lifestyles, sports, fashion, gossip, reviews, coupons, and so
on). However, the real challenge comes in what is traditionally known as
news, or information and newly breaking events from around the world.
Citizen, or now Netizen reporters are challenging the premise that
authoritative professional reporters are the only possible reporters of the
news. The news of the day is biased and opinionated no matter how many
claims for objectivity exist in the world of the reporter. In addition, the
choice of what becomes news is clearly subjective. Now that more people are
gaining a voice on the open public electronic discussion forums, previously
unheard "news" is being made available. The current professional news
reporting is not really reporting the news, rather it is reporting the news
as decided by a certain set of economic or political interests. Todd Masco
contrasts the two contending forms of the news media: "Free communication is
essential to the proper functioning of an open, free society such as ours.
In recent years, the functioning of this society has been impaired by the
monolithic control of our means of communication and news gathering (through
television and conglomerate-owned newspapers). This monolithic control
allows issues to be talked about only really in terms that only the people
who control the media and access to same can frame. Usenet, and [online]
News in general, changes this: it allows real debate on issues, allowing
perspectives from all sides to be seen."(43)
Journalists may survive, but they will be secondary to the symbiosis
that the combination of the Usenet software and computers with the Usenet
community produces. Karl Krueger observes how the Usenet collective is
evolving to join man and machine into a news-gathering, sorting and
disseminating body. He writes: "There is no need for Official Summarizers
(a.k.a. journalists) on Usenet, because everyone does it by cross-posting,
following-up, forwarding relevant articles to other places, maintaining ftp
archives and WWW indexes of Usenet articles."(44)
He continues: "Journalists will never replace software. The purpose of
journalists is similar to scribes in medieval times: to provide an
information service when there is insufficient technology or insufficient
general skill at using it. I'm not insulting journalism; it is a respectable
profession and useful. But you won't need a journalist when you have a good
enough newsreader/browser and know how to use it."(45)
These online commentators echo Victor Hugo's description of how the
printed book grew up to replace the authority that architecture had held in
earlier times. Hugo writes: "This was the presentiment that as human ideas
changed their form they would change their mode of expression, that the
crucial idea of each generation would no longer be written in the same
material or in the same way, that the book of stone, so solid and durable,
would give way to the book of paper, which was more solid and durable
still."(46)
Today, similarly, the need for a broader, and more cooperative
gathering and reporting of the news has helped to create the new online
media that are gradually supplanting the traditional forms of journalism.
Professional media critics writing in the Freedom Forum Media Studies
Journal acknowledge that online critics and news gatherers are presenting a
challenge to the professional news media that can lead to their overthrow
when they write: "News organizations can weather the blasts of professional
media critics, but their credibility cannot survive if they lose the trust
of the multitude of citizens critics throughout the United States."(47)
As more and more people come online, and realize the grassroots power
of becoming a Netizen reporter, the professional news media must evolve a
new role or will be increasingly marginalized.
Endnotes
1. Christopher Lasch, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of
Argument," Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 1, Winter 1995, p. 81.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 91.
4. Jared Sandberg, "Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Internet for
Facts, Some Fiction," Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1995, p. A6.
5. Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill, "The Citizen as Media
Critic," Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 2, Spring 1995, p. 91.
6. Ibid.
7. Thomas S. Volovic, "Encounters Online," Media Studies Journal, Vol 9
no 2, Spring 1995, p. 115.
8. Ibid.
9. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, "Online Snits Fomenting Public
Storms," Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1994.
10. From: Gloria Stern
Date: 7 April 1995
Subject: Re: Future of print journalism
Newsgroups: alt.journalism
11. From: John Pike
Date: 24 April 1995
Subject: Re: Usenet's political power (was Re: Content Providers
Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
12. From: Elizabeth Fischer
Date: 20 July 1994
Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
13. From: Jim Zoes
Date: 22 July, 1994
Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. From: Catherine Stanton
Date: 21 July 1994
Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
17. From: Abby Franquemont-Guillory
Date: 22 July 1994 13:45:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
18. From: The Nutty Professor
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:35:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Reporter Seeking Net-Abuse Comments
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
19. From: Mikez
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:58:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Mass media exploiting 'cyberspace' for ratings
Newsgroups: alt.journalism.criticism
20. From: Wesley Howard
Date: 8 Apr 1995 05:39:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
21. From: John DeHoog
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 20:01:24 +0900
Subject: Make journalists get an e-mail address!
Newsgroups: alt.journalism
22. Message-Id: <elknox.35.00091823@bsu.idbsu.edu>
23. Ibid.
24. Delores Dege, "Re: Impact of the Net on Society," e-mail message, 21
February 1995.
25. From: Keith L. Cowing
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:33:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Content Providers Professionals versus Amateurs on
Usenet
Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet
26. From: William Logan Lee
Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead? (was Creative
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
27. From: Lisa Pease
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 23:17:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Future of print journalism
Newsgroups: alt.journalism
28. From: Norman
Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:05:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society
Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet
29. From: John Pike
Date: 17 Apr 1995 12:21:49 GMT
Subject: Content Providers Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet
30. Ibid.
31. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.
32. Fara Warner, "Experts Surprised Intel Isn't Reaching Out To Con
sumers More," Wall Street Journal, 14 December 1994.
33. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.
34. Ibid.
35. From: John Hilvert
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:40:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet
36. From: Miskatonic Gryn.
Date: 17 Apr 1995 15:31:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
37. The number of people accessible via e-mail was placed at 27.5
million as of October 1994 according to John Quarterman and MIDS at
http://www.tic.com/mids/howbig.html
38. From: Miskatonic Gryn.
39. See John Kemeny, Man and the Computer, J.C.R. Licklider, "Man
Computer Symbiosis," Norbert Wiener, God & Golem, Inc.
40. From: Karl A. Krueger
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Special Issue of Time: Welcome to Cyberspace
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. From: L. Todd Masco
Newsgroups: news.future, comp.society.futures, ny.general
(No subject line)
44. Karl A. Krueger.
45. Ibid.
46. Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris, translated by John Sturrock,
Penguin Books, London, 1978, p. 189.
47. Fitzsimon and McGill, p. 201.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] Report from INET'96 Part I
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
"One of the striking dimensions of the Internet is that it
uncannily manages to crystallize the aspirations and hopes
of nearly all human beings, whatever their social identity
or orientation. This simply marks the fact that the Internet
turns out to be a generalized empowering device, a true
amplifier of humanity it self, with all its contradictions,
conflicts, ambiguities, but also with all its creativity,
intelligence and inher entsplendor. The program committee of
INET'96 has tried to capture this rich, complex and
ultimately exalting reality: all the way from technical
progress to human ambiguity." (INET'96 Final Program, p.6)
I spent a fascinating week in Montreal, Canada in June, 19 where I
attended INET'96 held by the Internet Society. What became clear at the
conference was that this is an important time in the development of the
Internet. People from around the world attended. Though an emphasis of the
conference was on business uses of the Internet, there was a great concern
among many of the people I spoke with and heard speak that the Internet be
made more available for educational, government, scientific and community
purposes.
Hitherto, it seemed that the emphasis was on technical or commercial
issues at Internet Society conferences, but at INET '96 a broader focus was
introduced. The theme of the conference was "The Internet is Transforming
Our Society Now." And the conference demonstrated this was true. The
contributions of Canadians to the conference which was held in Montreal,
Canada established a focus that set a standard for the conference. Canadian
speakers like Garth Graham, of Telecommunities Canada, Leslie Shade, and
Andrew Clement from the University of Toronto, and Marita Moll from the
Canadian Teachers' Federation, gave talks challenging the American efforts
to establish hegemonic dominance and a commercialized Internet.
Unlike the prevalent activity in the U.S. to get a piece of the pie,
as commercial entities are doing or as some of the libraries and non-
profits are doing to abandon universal service for the home users,* the
Canadians are in battle at the provincial and federal levels, pressuring
government officials to help to make universal access to the Net available
to all Canadians.
This was evident when Keith Spicer, the retiring chairman of the
Canadian CRTC, spoke at the conference. He began by saying that Canadian
businesses had made a serious mistake. When first trying to profit from the
Internet as an entertainment medium, they didn't make the profits expected
from the Internet. It was subsequently recognized that the Internet is an
education medium. As such, Canadians asked what was being done to make the
Internet available to all Canadians. When Spicer commented that among
Canadians there was a sense that wherever one lived, they were entitled to
the same access to the same communications media, one Canadian in the
audience corrected him, observing, "It's in our Constitution."
The Conference provided the occasion for a variety of Canadian
government officials to announce special initiatives to support the spread
of the Internet in Canada. Not only did government officials attend and
speak, but other public officials came and presented the variety of
projects they are involved with. Educators outlined the need for educa
tional policy in Canada emphasizing the importance of the Internet for
reforming and improving education. They described interesting projects with
students exploring how the Internet could be helpful in their education.
Health care workers presented how the Internet was being used to support
more efficient and less expensive health care efforts. Foreign aid workers
described how they were using the Internet in their efforts. High school
students attended and spoke up at sessions explaining how students in high
schools are eager to have more access to the Internet, etc.
Not only was Canada well represented at the conference, but French
Canada was also well represented. Several Canadian government officials
from French speaking Canada indicated new initiatives to spread the
Internet among French speaking Canadians, and to increase French language
content on the Internet.
Along with significant contributions by Canadians, there were
contributions by people from Japan, Australia, Malta, and other countries
around the world describing government supported initiatives .
U.S. government officials, however, who spoke, like George Strawn from
the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF Division of Networking,
Communications Research and Infrastructure), stood out in stark contrast.
Strawn described how as a U.S. government official, he had decided to call
a meeting of 130 service providers to tell them to figure out how to have
governance of the Internet. When asked a question as to how he as a
government official determined why to call such a meeting and whom to
invite to discuss how to govern the Internet, he answered that since the
NSF was privatizing the Internet, he thought calling such a meeting was a
"good" idea. Such statements by U.S. government officials like Strawn, and
Blair Levin, the FCC official who spoke at a keynote session in place of
the scheduled speaker Reed Hundt, stood out in contrast to those of the
Canadians and their government officials who were working to make access
more broadly available. U.S. government officials like Strawn and Levin
have demonstrated how the U.S. executive or legislative branches have
failed to carry out enlightened or democratic policy regarding the future
development of the Internet in the U.S.
Early on at a press conference, Internet officials were asked what
they were doing to build on the history and principles that had helped
create the Internet. The new President and CEO of the Internet Society,
George M. Heath, responded that that was something they would try to
include in future programs.
The theme of whether the future development of the Internet will build
on the past principles, continued to be a concern of those in the audience
during subsequent sessions. At the Thursday Plenary Session, Vint Cerf
chaired a session about "Will the Internet Survive?" Mike Roberts was added
to the panel announced in the program. Roberts spoke about how people from
the scientific and educational communities felt disenfranchised by the
growing commercialization of the Internet. The question was raised as to
whether the Internet would be the victim of the tragedy of the commons.
Questioning him, Rolf Nordhagen, a Professor from the University of
Oslo in Norway, and an Internet pioneer, asked what the Internet Society
was doing to prevent the tragedy from occurring. Some commentators spoke
about how this was one of the first conferences where people were openly
challenging and questioning the Internet Society.
At the first press conference, a press representative from Malaysia,
which is to host INET'97, asked the Internet Society to realize that there
was a need to have people other than company representatives go around to
countries to represent the Internet, as company representatives were trying
to sell something and thus couldn't be trusted.
Other memorable events included a talk by Dave Sutherland, of National
Capital Free-Net, describing how Free-Nets provide a helpful and low cost
model for connecting the schools in a community to the Internet; Marita
Moll's workshop where people broke into groups to discuss their experiences
and observations about how the Internet was being introduced in the
schools; the discussion in the last session of Track E "Internet and Social
Transformation" where people began to grapple with the need for universal
access to the Net if it is to truly fulfill its promise; the conversation
with Nicholas Luca of the Chilean press about the importance of the
Internet because it offers something gratuitous; seeing Internet pioneers
Larry Landwebber and Jon Postel talking at the conference and recognizing
all the work they along with many other pioneers have done to make the
Internet a reality; and wishing I had a camera to take their photo. I met
several Internet Society members from Japan and had several long
conversation on how to spread the Internet and concerning the problem of
having the Internet connect people who speak different languages. It was
helpful to hear the efforts of a teacher in rural Wisconsin to introduce
the Internet to his students, only to have his principal ask if he was
covering the curriculum. Such discussions helped to put in perspective the
battles in New York City we have had trying to extend Internet access to
all. The story of how a student from a middle school in rural Wisconsin who
got access to a fan club newsgroup and was able to interview a prominent
musician for a school newspaper article helped to clarify the empowering
nature of the Internet. He explained the surprise of some in the newsgroup
to the fact that he was only a middle school student and yet had done a
substantial interview. Also, I met someone I had exchanged e-mail with
three years earlier, talked at lunch with a university librarian who'd come
to the conference from Malta to learn how the Internet was going to change
the world, etc. During the session on Empowerment, the paper presented by
Michael Hauben "The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The
Man-Computer News Symbiosis" (See article [2] of this issue), led to the
question of whether the effects of the Net are being experienced in
political situations off the Net. Those in the session agreed that this was
an important question that it would be good to discuss further, and one
participant took the names of people at the session promising to set up a
mailing list.
The Internet Society had originally announced that the conference
would provide an opportunity to raise and discuss the hard questions and
disagreements among those concerned with the future of the Internet. The
conference did indeed provide that opportunity, especially in the
discussions one had with people during and outside of formal sessions.
One of the frustrations of the conference was the fact that at several
sessions speakers announced others not in the program who they then gave
the microphone to to give a talk not provided for in the official program.
Those who had come to hear the talks listed on the program found themselves
in a situation where they were forced to listen to other talks and speakers
they hadn't planned or determined they wanted to hear.
Another weakness was the process of choosing papers. A number of those
whose papers had been accepted for presentation didn't appear at the
conference to give their papers, nor were any arrangements made for others
to substitute. And sometimes even the session chairpersons didn't know
whether particular speakers on the program were going to be present. At
least one abstract of a proposed paper was submitted, with no formal
acceptance or rejection ever being received about the submission. There is
now the request the Internet Society examine how this happened so that it
not reoccur. Also, the conference failed to include any papers or
discussions providing perspective from the history and development of the
Internet so that there could be discussion of the principles that the
Internet was built on and how to continue to build on those principles.
Instead there was a commercial model of development presented, as in the
keynote talk given by John P. Mogridge, Chairman of Cisco Systems, making
it seem as if the Internet should and did develop as a corporation and
should just continue in that line of development. No comments or questions
or discussion were allowed after his talk. While several papers criticizing
the Internet were accepted for presentation, other papers documenting the
important new development represented by the Internet weren't accepted. And
there was a decidedly pro-"commercialize the Internet" focus in a number of
the papers or panels, especially in the keynote talks.
The high cost of attending the conference excluded many who wanted to
attend and who could have broadened the discussion. Also, many whose papers
were accepted couldn't afford the price of conference attendance and so
couldn't attend the receptions or other events of the conference. Papers on
the history and development of the Internet were excluded, while papers
documenting the history of other media like cable and public access TV were
included, thus denying the importance of an examination of the unique
factors of Internet development. The result was that too much of the
proceedings presented a pessimistic view of the future of the Internet as a
liberating media, and proposed instead a plan for a commercialization of
the Internet.
Despite these weaknesses, this reporter wants to extend a grateful
thank you to the organizers from the Internet Society in particular, and to
those who attended from around the world, in general for making the
conference such a memorable occasion. The conference demonstrated that the
Internet has been produced and is producing a community of Netizens around
the world. Though there are battles and difficulties along the way, there
are many working to find a helpful path forward for the Net. Next year, the
conference will be in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and one can only envy those
who will be able to attend. Many of the papers presented at the conference
are available online at: http://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/
- The US Telecommunications Act of 1996 promises libraries and non-profits
low cost access as replacement for universal service provisions to homes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[4] Communications Decency Act Decision
(Excerpts)
[Editor's Note: In February, 1996, the U.S. Congress amended the
Communications Act of 1934 governing U.S. telecommunications. The revision
included a provision known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA
mandated criminal penalties for certain kinds of speech on the Internet.
The law was rushed through Congress and voted on before many of those
voting had even read the language. Censorship provisions included in the
CDA were regarded, even by some of the Congresspersons voting for it, as
being contrary to the U.S. Constitution. The law also outlined a strict
procedure for anyone who wanted to challenge the its constitutionality.
Several Lawsuits requesting an injunction against the enforcement of the
CDA were initiated. One such lawsuit (ACLU vs. Reno) was filed in the
Federal District Court in Philadelphia. The lawsuit was executed in an
expedited fashion in accord with the procedures mandated in the CDA and on
June 13, 1996, the Court announced its decision. The decision granted a
permanent injunction against the enforcement of the CDA, and went on to
note the importance of the Internet as a new means of mass communication.
Following are some of the comments mostly made by one of the three Judges
in the case, Judge Dalzell. The Federal court decision is available at:
http://www.vtw.org/speech/ ]
>From the Findings of Fact:
"The Internet is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide
communication."
"Internet technology necessarily gives a speaker a potential worldwide
audience."
>From Judge Dalzell's Opinion:
The Internet is a new medium of mass communication. As such, the
Supreme Court's First amendment jurisprudence compels us to consider the
special qualities of this new medium in determining whether the CDA is a
constitutional exercise of governmental power. Relying on these special
qualities, which we have described at length in our Findings of fact above,
I conclude that the CDA is unconstitutional....
Since much of the communication on the Internet is participatory,
i.e. is a form of dialogue, a decrease in the number of speakers, speech
fora, and permissible topics will diminish the worldwide dialogue that is
the strength and signal achievement of the medium.
4. Diversity and Access on the Internet
Nearly eighty years ago, Justice Holmes, in dissent, wrote of the
ultimate constitutional importance of the "free trade in ideas":
[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting
faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the
very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good
desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best
test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted
in the competition of the market .
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)
(Holmes, J., dissenting).
For nearly as long, critics have attacked this much-maligned
"marketplace" theory of First Amendment jurisprudence as inconsistent with
economic and practical reality. Most marketplaces of mass speech, they
charge, are dominated by a few wealthy voices. Miami Herald Publishing Co.
v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 248-50 (1974). These voices dominate and to an
extent, create the national debate. Id. Individual citizens' participation
is, for the most part, passive., Id. at 251. Because most people lack the
money and time to buy a broadcast station or create a newspaper, they are
limited to the role of listeners, i.e., as watchers of television or
subscribers to newspapers. Id.
Economic realities limit the number of speakers even further.
Newspapers competing with each other and with (free) broadcast tend toward
extinction, as fixed costs drive competitors either to consolidate or leave
the marketplace. Id. at 249-50. As a result, people receive information
from relatively few sources:
The elimination of competing newspapers in most of our large
cities, and the concentration of control of media that results
from the only newspapers being owned by the same interests which
own a television station and a radio station, are important
components of this trend toward concentration of control of
outlets to inform the public. The result of these vast changes
has been to place in a few hands the power to inform the American
people and shape public opinion. Id. at 249.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the advent of cable
television has not offered significant relief from this problem. Although
the number of cable channels is exponentially greater than broadcast,
Turner, 114 S. Ct. at 2452, cable imposes relatively high entry costs, Id.
at 2451 52 (noting that the creation of a cable system requires "[t]he
construction of [a] physical infrastructure").
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has resisted governmental efforts to
alleviate these market dysfunctions. In Tornillo, the Supreme Court held
that market failure simply could not justify the regulation of print, 418
U.S. at 258, regardless of the validity of the criticisms of that medium,
Id. at 251. Tornillo invalidated a state "right-of-reply" statute, which
required a newspaper critical of a political candidate to give that
candidate equal time to reply to the charges. Id. at 244. The Court held
that the statute would be invalid even if it imposed no cost on a
newspaper, because of the statute's intrusion into editorial discretion:
A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for
news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into
a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size
and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and
public officials whether fair or unfair constitute the exercise
of editorial control and judgment. Id. at 258.
Similarly, in Turner, the Supreme Court rejected the Government's
argument that market dysfunction justified deferential review of speech
regulations forcable television. Even recognizing that the cable market
"suffers certain structural impediments", Turner, 114 S. Ct. at 2457, the
Court could not accept the Government's conclusion that this dysfunction
justified broadcast-type standards of review, since "the mere assertion of
dysfunction or failure in a speech market, without more, is not sufficient
to shield a speech regulation from the First Amendment standards applicable
to non-broadcast media." Id. at 2458. "[L]aws that single out the press, or
certain elements thereof, for special treatment 'pose a particular danger
of abuse by the State,' and so are always subject to at least some degree
of heightened First Amendment scrutiny." Id. (citation omitted). The Court
then eloquently reiterated that government-imposed, content-based speech
regulations are generally inconsistent with "[o]ur political system and
cultural life":
At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that
each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and
beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and
ideal. Government action that stifles speech on account of
its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular
message favored by the Government, contravenes this
essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk
that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate
regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or
information or manipulate the public debate through coercion
rather than persuasion. These restrictions "rais[e] the
specter that the Government may effectively drive certain
ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace."
Id. (citation omitted).
Both Tornillo and Turner recognize, in essence, that the cure for
market dysfunction (government-imposed, content-based speech restrictions)
will almost always be worse than the disease. Here, however, I am hard-
pressed even to identify the disease. It is no exaggeration to conclude
that the Internet has achieved, and continues to achieve, the most partici
patory marketplace of mass speech that this country and indeed the world
has yet seen. The plaintiffs in these actions correctly describe the
"democratizing" effects of Internet communication: individual citizens of
limited means can speak to a worldwide audience on issues of concern to
them. Federalists and Anti-Federalists may debate the structure of their
govern ment nightly, but these debates occur in newsgroups or chat rooms
rather than in pamphlets. Modern-day Luthers still post their theses, but
to electronic bulle tin boards rather than the door of the Wittenberg
Schlosskirche. More mundane (but from a constitutional perspective, equally
important) dialogue occurs between aspiring artists, or French cooks, or
dog lov ers, or fly fishermen.
Indeed, the Government's asserted "failure" of the Internet rests on
the implicit premise that too much speech occurs in that medium, and that
speech there is too available to the participants. This is exactly the
benefit of Internet communication, however. The Government, therefore,
implicitly asks this court to limit both the amount of speech on the
Internet and the availability of that speech. This argument is profoundly
repugnant to First Amendment principles.
My examination of the special characteristics of Internet
communication, and review of the Supreme Court's medium-specific First
Amendment jurisprudence, lead me to conclude that the Internet deserves the
broadest possible protection from government-imposed, content-based
regulation. If "the First Amendment erects a virtually insurmountable
barrier between government and the print media", Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 259
(White, J., concurring), even though the print medium fails to achieve the
hoped-for diversity in the marketplace of ideas, then that "insurmountable
barrier" must also exist for a medium that succeeds in achieving that
diversity. If our Constitution "prefer[s] 'the power of reason as applied
through public discussion'", Id. (citation omitted), "[r]egardless of how
beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be", Id.,
even though "occasionally debate on vital matters will not be compre
hensive and all viewpoints may not be expressed", Id. at 260, a medium that
does capture comprehensive debate and does allow for the expression of all
view points should receive at least the same protection from intrusion.
Finally, if the goal of our First Amendment jurisprudence is the
"individual dignity and choice" that arises from "putting the decision as
to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us,"
Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 448 49 (1991) (citing Cohen v.
California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971)), then we should be especially vigilant
in preventing content-based regulation of a medium that every minute allows
individual citizens actually to make those decisions. Any content-based
regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn
the global village to roast the pig. Cf. Butler, 352 U.S. at 383.
The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the
village green, or the mails. Be cause it would necessarily affect the
Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for
adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result.
Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of
conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered,
unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually
explicit, and vulgar in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we
should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all
walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a
medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.
Moreover, the CDA will almost certainly fail to accomplish the
Government's interest in shielding children from pornography on the
Internet. Nearly half of Internet communications originate outside the
United States, and some percentage of that figure represents pornography.
Pornography from, say, Amsterdam will be no less appealing to a child on
the Internet than pornography from New York City, and residents of
Amsterdam have little incentive to comply with the CDA.
My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting
children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can
continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through
vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child
pornography. See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701, 704 05 (6th Cir.
1995). As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for
public education about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the
Government can fill that role as well.
Conclusion
Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing
testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide
conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that
conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed,
the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion.
True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to be
offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant voices that
they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental regulation of Internet
content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of
plaintiffs' experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What
achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of
the Internet is that chaos."
Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the
First Amendment protects.
For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is
unconstitutional on its face.
[Editor's note: The US Department of Justice has appealed the federal court
decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision is expected by
Summer 1997.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[5] Reflections of an E-mail Evangeladdict
by Charles 'Chuck' A. James
chazza@imssys.imssys.com
My name is Chuck James. I am an e-mail addict.
My name is Chuck James. I am an e-mail evangelist
If you think this is a contradiction, then it illustrates the promise
and the problem of e-mail. Words are symbols which can be interpreted quite
differently from person to person. In our culture "addict" is usually
pejorative, particularly, if it is associated with abuse as in drugs,
alcohol or television. We are talking habit-forming to the extent that
cessation of the activity causes trauma or withdrawal symptoms. Is all
addiction bad? "Evangelist" may be pejorative or high praise, depending
upon one's persuasion and the context in which it is used. It all depends
on the reader's interpretation of the symbol. Most would agree that an
evangelist advances a cause with missionary zeal. I can do that.
How do these terms apply to me? Well suffice it to say I am happily
hooked. Until a few years ago I had accepted my well deserved reputation
for outrageous, if benign, neglect of faithful correspondents. I did not
write letters. I always intended to answer the wonderful letters from
friends, relatives and acquaintance. My intentions were good enough to pave
a six lane highway to hell.. I thoroughly enjoyed receiving letters but
over the years they mysteriously stopped coming. I was notoriously
inconsiderate, especially with close friends and family. Lincoln Steffens
description of Philadelphia at the turn of the century, fit me like a
glove. I was corrupt and contented. Then along came electronic mail (e-
mail) and I had a miraculous conversion. I am reminded of the Biblical
account of Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus when his conversion
occurred. I was on my way to utter damnation for my sins of omission, when
a bolt of e-mail shocked my psyche and I was never the same again. Well
almost. I still tend to disregard snail mail but now this is motivated more
by compassion than negligence. Even I refuse to read my handwriting. In
school nuns tried for years of forceful ruler-on-the-knuckle persuasion to
transform my hieroglyphics into legible script. Finally they were reduced
to tearful pleas for relief from frustration. The nuns made heroic efforts
to teach me the beautiful cursive of the Palmer method. In grateful memory
of that sweet dedication, I refuse to expose their failure with my writing.
In my last semester of high school I learned to type.
Years later, I acquired my first modem (necessary for communication
over the telephone lines). It was a 300 baud device. It is sufficient for
this article to define "baud" as the rate at which data is transmitted over
telephone lines. A more precise explanation is beyond the purview of this
article. It is hard to imagine now, but I accepted that 300 baud modem as
heaven sent. I could now communicate with the world. I subscribed to
CompuServe and I discovered e-mail. I began to exchange messages with
friends and online acquaintances who had e-mail addresses. It was so easy!
Much later I subscribed to America Online and acquired a new modem with
what was then the unbelievable new baud rate of 2400. E-mail became even
easier. Today, I have the fastest modem made. It is more than ten times
faster than that 2400. The experts say that modems cannot become any
faster. But faster access speeds are possible with some changes in the
transmission technology. I am impatiently licking my lips thinking about
the tremendous increase in speed that will come with full digital service.
When I started e-mail, I found it difficult to getup from my chair if
one message required a response. Now, it is close to impossible to leave an
unanswered message. The ease, the speed of e-mail was electrifying (no pun
intended). There were times when I would force myself to think about my
reply for at least a few minutes before replying and once or twice I even
left a message unanswered for a full day, but that caused unbearable pangs
of a strange guilt. Neglecting snail mail had never troubled me.
Will e-mail affect postal service? Could e-mail ultimately replace a
substantial portion of postal traffic. I say "yes" to both questions. Our
postal service is already taking steps to embrace this revolution. Consider
this excerpt from an online article that appeared December, 1994: "WORLD'S
FIRST INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC POST OFFICE DEBUTS IN ORLANDO, Fla.," (Dec. 13
PRNewswire). Imagine some day in the future being able to cruise the
Information Superhighway to do business with your post office without ever
leaving home. Imagine no more the future is closer than you think."
A caveat emptor (buyer beware) is in order. The undeniably seductive
characteristics of e-mail have dangers. One of the reasons that I was slow
to answer letters was a felt need to craft a thoughtful, long, witty letter
that could someday document my time, insight and philosophy. That takes
time. I seldom succeeded. One does not feel that heavy burden with e-mail.
E-mail takes little time. Unfortunately, I respond without thinking of the
message that may be conveyed to the recipient. The danger is that this
message may not be the message I intend to convey.
A friend who was doing e-mail for the first time, replied to my
message with profuse apologies for having offended me. Ironically, my
message was intended to convey subtle self-deprecating humor not offense.
The laugh was on me. Now she refuses to write another e-mail message.
However, she will write letters (snail mail) to me and I painfully respond
with wordprocessor letters. She is too good a friend to torture with my
handwriting. I am not noble enough to disguise my pain.
During a number of years serving abroad in Foreign Service with Peace
Corps Agency for International Development and Department of State, daily
cables were a fact. Without knowing it I was being conditioned for the e-
mail revolution to come. Now I am passionate without apology for e-mail. I
know its promise and problems. Give me an e-mail address and I will write.
E-mail brought me very close to a number of people. Many of them I
have never met in person. If I fail to reply to a message my correspondents
become alarmed because of my habit of instant reply. On more than one
occasion, friends have called to see if I am all right. On occasion, my
computer would go down, leaving messages unanswered for more than a day. A
message that I do not answer is a silent alarm. "Has chuck fallen and can't
get up to his computer?"
There are those who argue that the computer, e-mail and preoccupation
with the Internet and World Wide Web is dehumanizing and contributes to
anti-social behavior. That is hogwash! In fact just the opposite occurs.
A year ago in late April, 1994 my friend, Richard who lives in
California, needed to get information to his friend, Graham who teaches at
a college in Wolverhampton, England. Richard does e-mail but he was in
Washington, so he asked me to transmit the message through James Quirke, a
colleague of Graham. I sent the message and on the 3rd of May, 1994, James
and I started a daily correspondence which continues until this day. We
have exchanged more than four hundred messages. He shared my messages with
Janet who reluctantly decided to send me an e-mail message. It was her who
felt that she had offended me with a comment in her message. In June, his
college-age daughter, Hannah, started writing to me and our correspondence
continued until she visited me in August. That was her first trip to the
United States. I know the family very well but Hannah is the only one that
I have met in person. James and his wife, Janet are my closest friends. We
have never met in person.
In addition to our friendly exchange, James serves as the e-mail
conduit for Graham who is e-mail disadvantaged. Graham, in addition to his
music and teaching, is writing a book and has an insatiable appetite for
information. James transmits Graham's requests for information to me and
Richard. Often we have been able to get the information to him within 24
hours, thanks to Internet, America Online, CompuServe and e-mail.
Richard of California has connected me with an ever expanding group of
new friends thousands of miles away through e-mail. As a result, I have
five regular correspondents in England and Luxembourg. Although we have
exchanged almost a thousand messages, we have not licked a single stamp nor
had a long distance phone bill. However, James has called to find out if I
am well. My computer had been down for several days.
It does not end there. Several months ago while reading the messages
on a list to which I subscribe, I saw the name 'Jane James'. That is the
name of my ex wife. Up to that point I had never known another 'Jane James'
so I sent a message to this second Jane James at the prestigious small
college where she is the computer coordinator. I remarked on this
coincidence of names. She replied that she was struck by still another
coincidence. Her husband is 'Chuck James'. When I recovered from this, I
wrote back to ask if there is the possibility that he and I could be
related. She replied that she doubted that we would be related because her
husband is African American. Then I had to reveal my true colors.
Jane and I have never met in person nor have we exchanged photographs
but I continue to enjoy her interesting and often informative e-mail that
she manages to slip into her killing schedule.
I think that the most seductive feature of e-mail is its immediacy. To
me this "instant communication" is the most attractive feature of our
"instant society". Fast food I can do without most of the time. Instant
coffee can never replace the smell-as-it's-brewing original. But I embrace
instant communication. Post it in the morning and have a reply in the
afternoon.
Like the computer itself the inhuman speed of execution can be a fatal
attraction. Mistakes are made faster than a speeding bullet train and leaps
all boundaries, spanning the globe.
Quick responses can produce immediate confusion. Speed is the
temptress and often meaning becomes the victim. Words can have several
meanings. In personal contact we communicate not only with words but with
demeanor, tone and expression. A barking dog with a wagging tail is less of
a threat than the slinking, silent dog with tail tucked between legs and
head lowered. So too a word with a smile, a wink or a wagging finger (tail
if you like) conveys a different message than the same word accompanied by
a menacing scowl or tight lips and a frown.
It is not easy to know what is communicated to the recipient,
especially if the recipient is in another region, country and/or culture.
The word symbols may convey unintended meaning to the recipient. The
greatest communicators are those who are able to give readers or listeners
the exact message that they wish to convey. E-mail is transmitted without
the body language, the smile, the wink or a quiet tone to soften or
embellish the words. Thus emoticons or smileys have evolved as a sometimes
inadequate e-mail effort to simulate emotional context. This is one aspect
of virtual reality. The words: "You are crazy! ;-)" with the "smiley" will
not be taken literally. (hopefully) :-()
What is it about e-mail? For me, it is the relief from the self-
destructive tedium of handwriting. The pen may be mightier than the sword
but only if you have the skill to use the pen. I am script(urally)
disadvantaged. I can't write. I know how but the failure is in the
execution.
On the other hand, it seems that my fingers have a symbiotic
relationship with keyboards. I type much faster than I write and I feel
that I think better when I am typing. (I can say that with impunity because
who can prove otherwise). I can compose much easier on a keyboard than on a
writing pad. If you doubt that then just dare me to write a letter to you.
I will not be responsible for the consequences.
When I cannot get online to do e-mail, I suffer. I need to
communicate! I am an addict.
I think everyone needs to communicate with e-mail. I am an evangelist.
With e-mail one can reach out and touch someone in real time (almost)
without stamps and without a phone bill. With e-mail, the someone you touch
may be a continent away or a world away. You can establish a relationship
with that someone even though you may never see your correspondent in
person. E-mail can expand your horizon and your world, not only with new
friends but with new information, new insights and new understanding. It is
possible to link minds and even hearts with new worlds.
Marshall McLuhan was right. E-mail is the medium and the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[6] Culture and Communication
The Interplay in the New Public Commons
Usenet and Community Networks
by Michael Hauben
hauben@columbia.edu
"Any document that attempts to cover an emerging culture is doomed to
be incomplete. Even more so if the culture has no overt identity (at
least none outside virtual space). But the other side of that coin
presents us with the opportunity to document the ebb and flow, the
moments of growth and defeat, the development of this young culture."
(John Frost, Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture)
As we approach the new millennium, social relationships are changing
radically. In 1978, the anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote of an
"approaching world-wide culture" (p. 3). While she wrote of a global
culture made possible by the mass media of her day, her words actually
foresaw fundamental changes made by computer communication networks that
were just beginning. A new culture is being formed out of a desire for
communication (Graham, 1995). This culture is partially formed and
formulated by new technology and by social desires (Jones, 1989; Woodbury,
1994). People are dissatisfied with the modern condition, and much of the
new communication technology facilitates new global connections (Uncapher,
1992). This article will explore the effect of new communication forms on
human culture and of human culture on these new communication forms.
The development of transportation and communication technologies has
linked the world together in ways which make it simple to travel or
communicate with peoples and cultures around the world. The daily exposure
to various cultures makes it impossible for an individual to envision the
world consisting of only his or her culture (Mead). We really are moving
into a new global age which affects most aspects of human life, for
example, economics, language, politics, and entertainment. The exposure to
media and forms of communication help spread many of these cultural
elements. Television and radio connect people with the rest of the world in
a rather impersonal fashion, whereas computer networks are increasingly
bringing people of various cultures together in a much more intimate and
grassroots manner.
Historically, culture has changed slowly and been passed on from
generation to generation. In the last half of the twentieth century,
culture is a living dynamic part of people's lives. Mead writes that while
in the past culture was transmitted from the older generation to the
younger, today the younger generation learn from their peers and teach
their elders. Human culture gets set by how people live their lives
(Graham). Culture is created and re-enforced through how that person lives
in context of society and social movements. One is taught the culture of
his or her society while growing up, but those perceptions change as he or
she matures, develops and lives an adult life. Culture is no longer
statically defined. Rather a person grows up into a culture and then
changes it as that life progresses through time.
As people increasingly live a more global life style, whether mediated
through media or actual experience, culture is changing. This global
experience is facilitated by the ability of the individual to interact with
people from other cultures and countries on a personal level. Images and
thoughts available via mass media show these cultures exist, but when
people get a chance to talk and interact, then the differences become less
of an oddity and more of an opportunity (Uncapher).
There are critics (Appadurai, 1990; etc.) who claim this global
culture, or mass culture is snuffing out individual differences for a pre-
packaged culture. These critics call for the isolation of communities from
each other so that the uniqueness can be preserved. This criticism misses
that human culture is a dynamic element of society, and freezing it would
produce a museum of human society. Uncapher correctly points out that what
these critics do not recognize is that more and more these various cultures
are understanding the power of the new communication technologies. More and
more people are reacting against the mass media and corporate dominance and
calling for a chance to express their views and contribute their culture
into the global culture. Margaret Mead tells a story (pp. 5 6) of returning
to a village in New Guinea which originally requested medicine and trade
goods. On this later visit, rather than asking for more contributions of
western civilization, the villagers requested their songs be recorded via
tape recorder in order to contribute their own culture to the outside
world. The presence of radios made the villagers aware of others' music,
and they wanted a part of their culture broadcast around the world.
The new media of Usenet news, electronic mail and the Internet
facilitate the growth of global interactive communities. These forums are
made available through community networks, universities, the workplace,
Internet access providers, and other public access locations (Hauben &
Hauben, 1994). Human culture is ever evolving and developing, and the new
public commons are of a global nature. People are coming together and
living more of their daily lives with people from around the world. Through
the sharing of these moments by people, their cultures are coming to
encompass more of the world not before immediately available.
Usenet newsgroups are a relatively young medium of human discourse and
communication.(1) Studies are just being completed on the global online
culture. A recent thesis by Tim North (1994) asked the question "is there
an online culture and society on Usenet?" His conclusion was that there is
a definite Usenet culture, but that Usenet can not be considered a separate
society. Rather Usenet is "a super-structural society that spans many main-
stream societies and is dependent upon them for its continued existence."
(North, chap. 4.2.2, p. 4) Others (Avis, 1995; Graham; Jones; etc.) are
studying the online culture and the connection to the growing global
culture.
The Usenet technology was developed by graduate students in the late
1970s as a way to promote the sharing of information and to spread
communication between university campuses. This design highlights the
importance of the contribution by individuals to the community. Thus the
content of Usenet is produced by elements of the community for the whole of
the community. In forming of this public space, or commons, people are
encouraged to share their views, thoughts, and questions with others
(Hauben & Hauben). The chance to contribute and interact with other people
spread Usenet to become a truly global community of people hooking their
computers together to communicate. People both desire to talk and to
communicate with other people (Graham; Woodbury).
Both the technological design of opening one's computer up to accept
contributions of others and the desire to communicate led to the creation
of an egalitarian culture (Jones; North; Woodbury). People have both a
chance to introduce and share their own culture and a chance to broaden
themselves through exposures to these various cultures. As such, the Usenet
culture is an example of a global culture which is not a reflection of
purely one culture. Instead, Usenet both incorporates cultural elements
from many nations and builds a new online culture (North).
Community networks provide a way for citizens of a locality to hook
into these global communities for little or no cost (Graham). Community
networks also provide a way for communities to truly represent themselves
to others connected online (Graham; Weston). Without access made available
through community networks, through publicly available computer terminals
or local dial-in phone numbers, only those who could afford the monthly
charges or who have access through work or school would represent
themselves (Avis). Particular portraits of various cultures would thus be
only partially represented. Also, when access is available and open to all,
a greater wealth of contributions can be made. There is a strong push in
Canada and Canadian communities to get online. A lot of grass-roots
community network building is taking place. A grass-roots organization,
Telecommunities Canada, stresses the importance of contributing Canada's
various cultures to the online community and in this way make a
contribution to the whole community (Graham, Weston). In a similar way,
Izumi Aizu (1995, p. 6) says that Japan has "an opportunity to bring its
own cultural value to the open world." He continues, "It also opens the
possibility of changing Japan into a less rigid, more decentralized
society, following the network paradigm exercised by the distributed nature
of the Internet itself" (Ibid.).
There's something to be said about the attraction of representing
one's self to the greater community. The many-to-many form of communication
where an individual can broadcast to the community and get responses back
from other individuals is an empowering experience. No longer do you have
to be rich and powerful to communicate broadly to others and to represent
yourself and your own views. This power is making it possible for
individuals to communicate with others with similar interests (and
different interests) around the world. Grassroots organization is boosted
and even the formation of local community groups is accelerated.
Development of the commons to the exclusion of the big media
representations makes this a grassroots medium, or a new enlarged public
commons (Felsenstein, 1993).
The online culture is primarily a written one, although much of the
text is written generally in a non-formal almost off the cuff type of
nature. While people will post papers and well thought out ideas, much of
the conversation is generated in an immediate response to others' messages.
This text can feel like a conversation, or a written version of oral
culture. Stories akin to the great stories of the pre-history come about.
Legends and urban myths circulate and are disseminated (Jones). Pictures
and other non-text items can be sent in Usenet messages, but these non-text
items are primarily transferred and not modified, thought upon or
communally worked on as are the textual ideas. The common shared online
language is English (Azumi). However, other languages exist in country
hierarchies and newsgroups and in mailing lists. Along with IRC channels,
gopher sites and World Wide Web pages.
Text also means that body language and other non-verbal clues need to
be spelled out. Extra-sensory emoticons (2) have been invented (e.g.,
<grin>, <laugh>, etc.) along with smileys. Smileys are textual drawings of
a person's face with a smile or grin rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise
to be typeable and printable on computer text screens and printouts (3).
North writes on how there is a distinct Usenet culture, and that this
culture is opening and welcoming of new-comers. He also notes when there is
unfriendliness to "newbies", but focuses on how the online culture is
documented and available for people to learn from documents available
online(4). This definition of culture and Netiquette (the online word for
net etiquette) is available to learn from and open for discussion. Bruce
Jones sums up the net culture, "the Usenet network of computers and users
constitutes a community and a culture, bounded by its own set of norms and
conventions, marked by its own linguistic jargon and sense of humor and
accumulating its own folklore." (p. 2)
Both North and Jones elaborate on what they see to be an egalitarian
tendency or tendency to contribute to the community's benefit. Jones
writes, " the people of the net owe something to each other. While not
bound by formal, written agreements, people nevertheless are required by
convention to observe certain amenities because they serve the greater
common interest of the net. These aspects of voluntary association are the
elements of culture and community that bind the people of Usenet together."
(p. 4)
The global culture is formed in several ways, none of which is a
generic corporate rubber stamp. People are taking charge. They are bringing
their own cultures into the global culture and spreading this new culture
around the world. This is taking on a general form and an online form. The
online form provides a strong means by which people can spread their ideas
and culture which in turn affects the broader global culture. This broader
global culture also affects newsgroups or online media. The ability to
express oneself to the rest of the world is addictive and the rapid
increase of new people joining the online global community makes that
manifest. "The voiceless and the oppressed in every part of the world have
begun to demand more power . The secure belief that those who knew had
authority over those who did not has been shaken" (Mead, p.5).
NOTES
1) Usenet was initiated in 1979.
2) Emoticons are "icons" which are used to include emotion and other meta-
messages otherwise not transmittable in written online communication
forms.
3) Examples include :-) traditional smile ;-) wink, etc. See Sanderson,
1992 for more examples.
4) The online culture is described and written about in FAQ (frequently
asked question) files in various newsgroups, the various news.newuser
newsgroups and in other readily available files (North).
REFERENCES
Aizu, Izumi. (1995). Cultural Impact on Network Evolution in Japan
Emergence of Netizens [Online]. Institute for HyperNetwork Society.
Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of
Japan. Available WWW:
http://www.glocom.ac.jp/Publications/Aizu/nete&c.html
Appadurai, Arjun. (1990). "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global
Cultural Economy." Public Culture, 2 1 24.
Avis, Andrew. (1995) Public Spaces on the Information Highway: The Role of
Community Networks [Online]. Unpublished master's thesis, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Available WWW:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~aavis/ thesis/thesis.html
Felsenstein, Lee. (1993, May). "The Commons of Information." Dr. Dobbs'
Journal 18 22.
Frost, John. (1993). Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture [Online].
Available WWW:
http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~mengwong/cyber/cgvc1.html
Graham, Garth. (March 29, 1995). A Domain Where Thought is Free to Roam:
The Social Purpose of Community Networks. Prepared for Telecommunities
Canada for CRTC public hearings on information highway [Online].
Available WWW:
http://www.freenet.mb.ca/tc/crtc.brief.html
Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On The History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet. Manuscript submitted for publication. Also
available (1994) WWW:
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
Jones, Bruce. (1991) An Ethnography of the Usenet Computer Network:
Proposal for a Ph.D. Dissertation in Communications [Online]. University
of California, San Diego. Dept. of Communication. Available ftp:
weber.ucsd.edu
Directory: /Usenet.Hist/, File: diss.proposal
Mead, Margaret (1978). Culture and Commitment: The New Relationships
Between the Generations in the 1970s. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books/Doubleday.
North, Tim. (1994) The Internet and Usenet Global Computer Networks: An
investigation of their culture and its effects on new users [Online].
Unpublished master's thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
Australia. Available WWW:
http://foo.curtin.edu.au/Thesis/
Sanderson, David W. (Ed.). (1993). Smileys. Sebastopol, CA:
O'Reilly & Associates.
Uncapher, Willard. (1992). Between Local and Global: Placing the Media-
scape in the Transnational Cultural Flow [Online]. Available WWW:
http://www.eff.org//pub/Net_culture/Global_village/
between_global_and_local.paper
Weston, Jay. (Nov. 26, 1994). Old Freedoms and New Technologies: The
Evolution of Community Networking. [Online]. Paper presented at the FREE
SPEECH AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE Symposium: University of
Waterloo, Canada Available WWW:
http://www.nptn.org/cyber.serv/tdp/jweston
Woodbury, Gregory G. (1994, Fall). "Net Cultural Assumptions." [Online].
Amateur Computerist Newsletter, 6-2 Available ftp: wuarchive.wustl.edu
Directory: /doc/misc/acn/ File: acn6 2.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[7] Online Education
by Kerry Miller
astingsh@ksu.edu
In Computer Underground Digest, 6 March 96, Mike Godwin wrote,
"Telephones work best as one-to-one media. And there's no greater proof of
this than to try to participate in a conference call. Conference calls are
attempts to use telephones as many-to-many media and they're always
exasperating. For even longer, we've had one-to-many media, from one
central source to large audiences. These include the newspaper, a couple of
centuries-old technology, movies, broadcasting." He might have added that
Education, as the charge to the paradigmatic schoolmaster or mistress at
the blackboard to bring her students to the light (even as they sit in
ordered rows of desks) has been known, is an example of misplaced one-to-
many techniques, trying to simulate what used to be the one-to-one
relationship of guru and chela.
Historically, natural limitations on human capacities made a messenger
or mediator necessary for any broader interaction with the world than one's
own immediate experience. By the same token, they also provided channels
for power. Against hearsay, it was the *king's* messenger; against royal
dictum, it was the clerical scribe copying books one at a time. Against the
church, it was movable type; against the press tycoons, "mass media"
broadcasting. And now we have an Internet, and once again the powers that
be are feeling threatened, as Mike Godwin goes on to elaborate.
Not accidentally, the historical use of power has been to maintain the
status quo ante, to keep power in the hands of those who had it to start
with. Thus, although each technological advance at first seemed to be a
liberating development, later it was subordinated, becoming a controlled
and controlling part of ever more extensive "administrative services."
Under the layers of mediated interaction, personal experience had become
almost an irrelevancy. Competence in one's field of endeavor gave way to
"competitiveness," while the vocabulary of "communication" itself lost
almost all connection to community. And education, once the collective
cultivation of new citizens, became entrenched in the overarching power
structure; institutionalized into a hierarchical series of as sessments,
certificates, and qualifications to the point that the word no longer
refers primarily to a subjective process of learning but to the objective
process of instruction by "educators." (I argue only against the
exclusivity of this descriptor; not against anyone presently using it God
knows, they're trying.)
"The Net," Godwin points out, "has changed all this. It is the first
many-to-many medium. It is the first medium that combines all the powers to
reach a large audience that you see in broadcasting and newspapers with all
the intimacy and multi-directional flow of information that you see in
telephone calls. It is both intimate and powerful."
Access to online books and to governmental acts is certainly part of
the Net advantage, but access to each other is the revolution. No longer
students (or teachers) defined by our obedience to the regime, we are
suddenly displaced people struggling to make a community from scratch. As
we discover that it's not easy to be Netizens, we also realize that
together, collectively, we can learn, and that learning to be is what
community is all about. We are all educators. In Netspace, we all carry the
charge.
Simply put, institutionalization preserves only the form not the
spirit of a society. Whether cast as the King's law or the Church's Bull,
static structures do not work for consciousness. Thus, Michael Hauben
writes in The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net, ch. 16, "Both
the printing revolution and the Net revolution have been a catalyst for
increased intellectual activity. Such activity tends to provide pressure
for more democracy. When people have the chance and the means to start
thinking, ideas of self-rule appear. This increased accessibility of people
to each other means we can all gain and learn from the interests and
knowledge of others, more so than from any single teacher."
(www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/)
Suddenly democracy means more than pretending that a delegate to the
power structure represents one's interest. It means each of us must take
the responsibility of understanding what our interests actually are, and
learning to locate it in the panoply of interests of all of us, to value it
not absolutely but relatively, to give it quality. This never-ending
process is what education should be, but our antecedent schooling has sadly
ill-prepared us for the exercise. More sadly still, laws like the
Communications Decency Act (passed for the purpose of protecting the public
from the risk of Net access, but reflecting the awareness that our learning
to qualify ourselves constitutes a *structural* threat) reinforce the idea
that access is not to be thought of as a right, but as a privilege, to be
administered (surprise, surprise) by authorized, certified, credentialed
and "qualified" establishmentarians.
The Haubens continue, "Netizens are not just anyone who comes online,
and they are especially not people who come online for isolated gain or
profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is a service.
Rather they are people who understand it takes effort and action on each
and everyone's part to make the Net a regenerative and vibrant community
and resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote time and effort into
making the Net, this new part of our world, a better place."
Currently, a "blue ribbon campaign" protests against the infringement
of free expression which the CDA represents. ASCII Lambda Cy is the next
step: an honorary association of Netizens who believe that communication is
something more than expression. Leaving the metaphors of "coming of age" or
"growing up," for the perverted and/or censorious, the viability or
vibrancy of a community whether in cyberspace or on the ground lies in its
ability to transcend itself; that is, to learn from its gurus, to teach its
newbies *and vice versa*. In this belief, ALCy collectively advances the
public's right not only to do its thing, but to do better; not only to open
its eyes, but to have something of quality to look at.
An Oath for Online Educators
I vow to involve /\ myself only in projects
which, through \ \ conscientious exercise, I
believe contribute \ \ / to the continuing
education of \ \ / / all beings in peace,
dignity and self- / \/ \/ /\ fulfillment. I vow
to work through / / / / my communication
to reduce noise, \/ /\ /\ / stress or invasion of
privacy of any / / \ \ individual, minimise
pollution of the / \ \ earth, air and water,
and avoid destruc- \ \ tion of the natural
beat and beauty \/ of the noosphere.
Ascii Lambda Cy
(Text after M W Thring, "The Engineers Conscience"; best viewed when using
mono-spaced type.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[8] Report from INET'96 Part II
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
[Editor's Note: Following is an account of the final plenary at INET'96
held by the Internet Society in Montreal in June, 1996. A report on the
conference as a whole appears in an article elsewhere in this issue.]
The final talk was to be given by Reed Hundt of the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission. He didn't attend however, and instead the talk
was given by Blair Levin, Chief of Staff at the FCC.(1)
The talk was a surprise as it seemed uninformed both about the history
and importance of the Internet and of the important public policy
considerations that need to be taken into account when making any rules for
regulating the Internet.(2)
At the beginning of the talk, there was the statement that Reed Hundt
was the first FCC Chairman to have a computer on his desk, and that he
asked his staff to explain how the Internet works. Instead of a commitment
to learn about how the Internet developed and the significant impact it is
having on the world, Levin presented us with the statement "the Internet
gives us the opportunity to change all our communications policies."
The FCC is taking license to start from scratch, throwing out all the
lessons that have helped the Internet grow and develop, and instead,
creating its own models.
In his talk, Blair Levin listed five principles:
1. How can public policy promote expansion of bandwidth?
2. What rules can we get rid of or keep?
3. What should be the pricing mechanism?
4. How to make sure it reaches everyone, especially kids in schools.
5. How to make sure it reaches across the globe.
Levin's principles put universal service as the fourth point, and then
substituted access for kids in schools for the principle of universal
service.
During the talk, Levin described how the NTIA (the National
Telecommunications Information Administration) had submitted an important
paper to the FCC on the issue of voice over the Internet. This made it
clear that the NTIA had not submitted any paper to the FCC on the issue of
universal service, despite the fact that they had held an online hearing on
several issues, including universal service and the Internet, in November
1994. The NTIA has done nothing to act on the broad expression of sentiment
for universal service that was expressed during that online public
meeting.(3)
When asked about the NTIA online meeting, Blair said that the FCC knew
of the meeting. However, it has had no effect on their deliberations, nor
on the request of people that the FCC open up their decision-making process
so that the people who are being penalized by their decisions can have a
means of providing input into those decisions.
�
In response to a question about the need for universal service, Blair
responded that that was the obligation of other branches of the U.S.
government like the Department of Education. He said this despite the fact
the FCC is charged with making rules to provide for the universal service
provisions of the Telecommunications Act passed by the U.S. Congress in
February 1996.
Blair also claimed to welcome submissions into their process. But I
found it would cost over $50 to pay postage costs for a submission since
there were over 35 people who had to receive a copy (and postage on a
minimal submission was $1.45).(4) In response to a complaint about this
cost, Blair said to see Kevin Werbach, a lawyer at the FCC, who had come
with him. Kevin Werbach offered no means of dealing with the high cost of
making a submission.
Many people at the Internet Society Conference applauded in response
to the question about the lack of concern by the FCC for the principle of
universal service to the Internet. At the Internet Society conference, many
people spoke up about the need in their countries, whether that be Canada,
or Norway, or Ghana, etc. for the Net to be more widespread and available
to the public for educational and community purposes. Many were concerned
about the inability of the so called "market forces" to provide networking
access to other than corporate or well-to-do users. Yet, Levin's talk,
being given in the name of Reed Hundt, the Chairman of the regulatory body
in the U.S. charged with making the rules to provide for universal service,
was unconcerned about the important issues and problems that providing
universal service to the Internet raises.
It is unfortunate that Reed Hundt did not come to the conference and
take up the challenge to learn what the real concerns of people around the
world are with regard to access to the Internet. Isolated in Washington,
with no access to him possible for most people (though someone from one
company told me that he was told to send him e-mail whenever he had a
concern), it seems difficult for the rules process to be able to produce
any helpful outcome. There need to be open meetings and sessions where
people who are concerned with these issues are invited to be heard and to
discuss these issues with the FCC. Instead the FCC process is being carried
out in a manner similar to the non public process carried on behind closed
doors which was used by the U.S. Congress to craft the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.
It is a tribute to the Internet Society that they did make an effort
to invite government officials like Reed Hundt to the conference. The FCC
will be setting an example for the rest of the world by the
telecommunications policy rules it creates. Will the policy be one that
recognizes that the so called "market" cannot provide the free or low cost
access to the Internet that is necessary to make universal service a
reality? Will the rules created be based on looking back at how time-
sharing and then the ARPANET and the Internet developed so they can build
on those lessons?
To create rules that are based on firm lessons from the past and firm
principles so they will be fruitful, it is necessary that the FCC process
creating those rules be much more open than it is at present. If the FCC
could learn from the experience of the Internet and set up newsgroups and
real e-mail access to the officials involved, that would demonstrate a
commitment to more equitable access to the Internet and to the FCC
rulemaking process that is needed to make the Internet available to all.
But from the recent talk presented by the FCC official at INET'96 there
seems little indication that the need for an open process and a many-to-
many means of communication is recognized among those at the FCC. There is
even less evidence that the FCC is capable of making rules for universal
service in order to make Internet access available to all.
[Editor's note: Shortly after this report from INET'96 was posted on
Usenet, the FCC supported an online forum to gather input into its rule
making process on universal access. However, the forum was moderated and
only posts about access to schools, libraries, non-profit organizations,
etc. were encouraged. Those concerned with access for the home users were
told their input was not appropriate for this online forum. The FCC has
actively discouraged the interest of home users of the Internet to be
presented at its hearings.]
Notes
(1) A version of the talk is available at:
http:// www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt
(2) This is particularly surprising in light of the "Notice of Inquiry"
issued by the Federal Communications Commission, Ben F. Waple,
Secretary, Docket No. 16979, November 10, 1966. In this inquiry the FCC
noted the growing convergence of computers and communications and
recognized these would raise a number of regulatory and policy
questions that the FCC would be obligated to address. The Commission
acknowledged its obligation under the Telecommunications Act to respond
to these questions by "timely and informed resolution...so as to serve
the needs of the public effectively, efficiently, and economically." A
copy of this inquiry is available in Conversational Computers, edited
by William D. Orr, New York, 1968, p. 177-186.
(3) For a summary of the discussion during the online meeting about the
need for universal service, see "The NTIA Conference on the Future of
the Net: Creating a Prototype for a Democratic Decision Making Process"
by Ronda Hauben http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x11 and "The Net
and the Future of Politics: The Ascendency of the Commons," by Michael
Hauben http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x14
(4) I personally made the effort to make a submission. In the process, I
learned the high cost of having to serve 35 parties by mail in addition
to providing several copies to the FCC itself. Such costly postage and
copying requirements effectively bar many interested people who will be
affected by the rules from participating in the proceedings determining
the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[9] How Does the Internet Impact
Our Daily Lives?
by Richard Nichols
nichols@hermes.law.stetson.edu
The available information on the Internet in the form of data,
researchable data, text on myriads of subjects into one's computer whether
it be at work or home has reached the mind-boggling stage. There is
probably no subject matter that cannot be found on the "net."
Recently, I needed to find out about whether companies I was going to
contract with, were licenced in our state. I called the regulatory agency
and obtained the information. As an afterthought, I inquired whether this
information was available on the "net." The response was, "I don't know
what you are talking about." This is the sad part of this great
"information highway."
There are many people who still are unaware of the Internet and its
far reaching abilities. Well, after I hung up, I started to search the
state government sites and lo and behold I found a site for Professional
Business Regulation. It turned out to be a searchable database. I was able
to find out what I needed about the companies I was considering doing
business with.
My hobby is genealogy, the tracing of one's ancestry. It is one of the
largest hobbies in the world. The information available to people
interested in this hobby is growing by leaps and bounds on the Internet.
More and more searchable databases are being created. Eventually
organizations like the National Census Bureau, National Archives, Church of
the Latter Day Saints, etc will make available on the Internet their
databases to search. Most of the searchable material now is being done by
average people to complete projects to make this hobby more easily
researched from their home. The State of Virginia has a library where one
can download "actual" documents on Civil War pension applications. There
you will see the actual document in the person's own handwriting. WOW! What
a concept!
At my job, which is at a medium sized academic law library, the
Internet has become part of our daily lives. Legal information can be
researched via many different facets on the Internet; via federal, state
and local governments, various searchable databases, vendors, etc.
The Internet, in my opinion, is here to stay. It will change over
time. It brings people together via e-mail, 'chat' lines, newsgroups, etc.
It allows one to explore almost anything that he or she can think of. I am
still a novice in this world of rapidly expanding and changing cyberspace.
I will never master it to its fullest. I will bump and chug along the
information highway finding myself turning off here and there to visit
museums, play games, learn the latest sports news, update myself on the
latest changes in a certain law or just continue plodding along finding
answers to my genealogy questions. In any case, I have found this new world
of technology and information to be a dramatic change in our lives for the
better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[10] FCC Submission in Universal Service
Rulesetting Proceedings
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
[Editor's Note: The following was submitted to the FCC as input into the
Universal Service Proceedings in CC Docket No. 9 6-45 before the May 7,
1996 deadline. The U.S. Congress has mandated a set of deadlines for the
FCC to create rules that will radically restructure the telecommunications
infrastructure in the U.S. and with it the provisions for universal service
for the home user. This submission into the FCC proceedings was to protest
these radical changes in the definition and implementation of universal
service without the participation or input of the many home users.]
I - Introduction
Following is a response to some of the discussion initiated by the
Benton Foundation regarding how to look at the question of Universal
Service toward the FCC proceedings on input for the Universal Service
definition to function under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The following is from a post on the Netizens Association Mailing List.
Kerry Miller posted the Benton Foundation excerpts which are indicated by
the > and I responded to them.
May 7 was the deadline for FCC comments on the comments previously
submitted to them and I am submitting this and also posting it as a way to
try to open up the discussion on the principles that should guide a
definition of universal service regarding online access.
Also, after several efforts to try to determine if comments could be
submitted via email, I was told that comments could be submitted to
ssegal@fcc.gov via e-mail, but they would be considered informal comments.
I am submitting these comments to the FCC via e-mail, but hope that they
will be considered as part of proceedings, as there isn't much point in
saying one can submit something via e-mail if they aren't taken seriously.
II - Comments
On Fri, 3 May 1996, Kerry Miller posted the following from the Benton
Foundation postings about universal service: [My comments follow -RH]
> http://www.benton.org/Goingon/advocates.html
> Public Interest advocates, universal service, and
> the Telecommunications Act of 1996
>
> The questions public interest advocates should be
> asking themselves and the FCC include:
> * How should the discussion of Universal Service
> be framed? Is Universal Service about connecting
> phones? Connecting people with phones? Or
> connecting people with people? How can the
> discussion center around the people who need to
> benefit from the policy most?
This is worth considering. But it is hard to understand how the
question can be framed adequately if the folks for whom this is important
have no way to be part of the discussion.
That is why there is a need for universal access to Usenet newsgroups
and e-mail so folks can have a chance to speak about what the real problems
and needs are.
> * How is the value of a network-any network,
> phone or computer-diminished as fewer and fewer
> people have access to it?
The question seems as if it is phrased backwards. The issue is how
does the value of any network increase as more and more people have access
to it and are able to contribute to it. The ability to contribute is
crucial with regard to a network like the Internet and Usenet.
> What can be done to identify the communities and
> individuals most at risk of falling off the networks
> that will make up the National Information
> Infrastructure?
Again the questions seems backwards. First there is NO National
Information Infrastructure (at least not in the U.S.).
There is an Internet that people have built over a period of several
decades. The work has often been funded by research institutions or
government, but people have contributed to the content and technical needs
and development.
The question that needed to be raised was What was the value of this
development and how to extend access to it?
Since this development was not the result of commercial enterprises,
but of people contributing, made possible by academic and government
support and sometimes also support from companies who benefitted from their
participation, it has been inappropriate to set commercialization and
privatization as the first goals of the policy, without allowing public
discussion into what the policy should be and why.
> What strategies can be employed to add people to
> the networks and keep them on? How can the
> voices of the people who have fallen off
> the networks be included in the rulemaking?
It is good to see that the question is being raised of how to have the
voices of people included in the rulemaking.
The problem right now is that the voices of those on or off the
Internet are basically excluded from being heard in the rulemaking
procedure since the dead lines have been so quick and the means of even
getting the law or the submissions have been basically beyond most people
(one has to be able to download things that are in WordPerfect it seems).
In any case, it has been made very difficult to even access the ma terial
at the FCC's WWW site and it has been made virtually impossible to have any
contact with anyone at the FCC to ask about the process or get help in
knowing how to deal with it all.
�
Thus though business interests and self appointed "public service
advocates" may have access to the process, the public is denied access and
thus has no way of making the crucial input that the FCC needs to make
regulations that can be helpful.
> * What telecommunications services should be
> "universal" in the information age?
On the Netizens Association list we have discussed the need for the
Net to be a means for communication. Thus we have identified text based e-
mail, Usenet, and lynx as a basic need to have universally available. It is
interesting that the Nov. 1994 NTIA online conference on the future of the
Net which included discussion of universal service and access identified a
similar set of needs.
That is the basic set of what would make it possible for the public to
be able to participate in the FCC process if that process was an open and
participatory one, rather than an exclusive and closed one.
> What flexibility should people have in picking the
> services they need? How might Universal Service
> be defined so that recipients of the services do not
> have to pay to protect certain rights (such as
> privacy)? What good is a wire without connections
> to the hardware, training, and support that are
> essential for effective use?
I don't see privacy as a crucial right. I see access as the crucial
right, and as someone early on on the Netizens list said, that e-mail is a
basic right.
The Free-Nets and community networks that have developed around
universities and libraries in some areas made a beginning of offering a
minimal kind of access and having the help needed for people to utilize
this access. Yet these examples have been left out of the Telecommunica
tions Act of 1996. Also, universities often have established a way of
having computer centers with some staff who are available to help people
who come to the centers, and they often have some minimum set of classes
available to introduce those new to the technology to how to use it.
Thus again, there are models that could be examined. But in the
process of this it would also be important to examine the problems that
these models have had or that people have had trying to get some basic
services in these situations.
There is a way to get real information about the problems and needs,
but once again the FCC process doesn't seem to provide any mechanism for
this to happen.
> * What role can nonprofit organizations and
> other community-based institutions play in
> delivering access to basic and advanced
> services?
� It's not clear to me who these nonprofit organizations and other
community-based institutions are that are being proposed here. This leaves
out the community networks that have developed. It also leaves out academic
institutions, such as universities and colleges and community colleges. And
it leaves out the experience of the NSF in helping to connect these
institutions.
So instead of building on what has been developed and learning from
it, it is substituting a new set of institutions.
In NYC these institutions have not been helpful in promoting e-mail
for all and thus to rely on such as the mechanism for the future seems to
ignore what the obstacles are.
> How could centralized delivery centers reduce the
> costs of providing basic and advanced services in
> both urban and rural areas? What role could
> existing community-based organizations-
> schools, libraries, community centers, and so
> on-play in managing these new telecommunica
> tions centers?
I don't understand why this is discussing "basic and advanced
services". It seems there is a need for basic communication media to be
available such as email and Usenet and lynx, in addition to basic phone
service, at a low or minimal cost.
Some of the problem with all this is that these questions seem to be
proposing relying on these organizations to do something, rather than
looking at what has been able to extend access to the online world and
build on the lessons.
> Also a more complex technological environment
> with numerous carriers, providing universal access
> may not be enough to facilitate widespread use of
> telecommunications.
One of the problems with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that it
is fundamentally changing the way basic telephone service is to be provided
from a way that has proven to function in the past in the U.S., i.e. a
regulated utility, to one that has never proven to work, i.e. the so called
"market", a.k.a. the corporate monopolies being given unfettered right to
fleece the public for basic telephone service.
> The public may need ongoing consumer education
> so that individuals and organizations are aware of
> the options available to them, are able to make in
> formed decisions about these options, understand
> the pricing of the services, and know how to get
> assistance if they have difficulties with service
> reliability, bills, privacy, and other problems.
The public doesn't need "consumer education". We need regulation of
the monopolies. This is saying the corporate big boys can do whatever they
want and we the public need education so we know how to pick among them.
We can't pick among them. The whole experiment with monopolies over
many years has shown that the public is hurt by them and that is why there
is a need for government to regulate the monopolies, not to provide so
called "consumer education".
> How might nonprofit organizations provide
> these educational services as well?
So the corporate horror is to be unleashed and the nonprofits are to
be given a piece of the action?
Instead of the so called "nonprofits" opposing the unleashing of the
corporate fury, they are being encouraged to line up for their share of the
pie.
Meanwhile the public is to be the victim of both the unfettered
corporate grab of our communications infrastructure, and of the
"nonprofits" reaching for their share.
This is what the closed process creating these laws and regulations
results in.
It isn't that the e-mail, Usenet and lynx are being provided on a
universal basis, but that basic telephone service has been removed from
being a public right to being a corporate right to make profit.
One of the important issues left out in the above discussion of
Universal Service from a posting by the Benton Foundation is that the
Internet and Usenet arose from a technical and social need. That need was
that as computers develop people need to have a means of remote support to
get the technology to function. As computers play an increasingly important
role in our society, it will be necessary for an ever growing number of
people to be able to deal with computers.
The technical problems haven't been solved. Those who are working at
university or community sites where e-mail or Usenet or WWW are being
provided to 30,000 or plus people notice that there are difficulties in
making this all work.
As the Net is to be spread there needs to be the technical support to
make this all function. Since it isn't that the commercial world has made
this all work to begin with, it isn't that they can be relied upon to build
the future.
Thus there is a need for the Net to spread to make it possible for
computer use to spread, and there is a need for a social policy and program
to guide how this is done.
The Telecommunications '96 Law fails to provide for any of this and
even fails to safeguard the telephone system in the U.S.
It seems there is a need for the discussion of these issues to be
opened up among people on the Net, which is one of the reasons for the
Netizens Association Mailing list.
�
This process was not designed, it seems, to encourage input into it.
And if it is so hard to get some clarification about how to make
submissions, it is clear that that is another stumbling block in having any
input from the folks that the FCC needs to hear from if they are to have
the information and feedback needed to make decisions that will be able to
be helpful toward making some form of worthwhile universal service
regarding both phone and Internet access possible. It does seem that the
FCC internal structures, as well as the rush required by the mandates of
the law, make the forming of any meaningful regulation providing for
universal service basically impossible. A comment on the Netizens list that
the whole process needs to be stopped and some form of public process like
town meetings around the country set up to take input into the process, is
helpful. Responding to the Benton Foundation question posted to the
Netizens Association list by Kerry Miller, about "How can the discussion
center around the people who need to benefit from the policy most," Peter
Moulding wrote, "(My two cents worth) By widespread public meetings in
every town hall each with links to the Internet, so that people can raise
their hands and their question or viewpoint will be keyed in to the
discussion. This is the first step and will take time and organization, so
it is vital that the discussion on universal service is not rushed
through." (Netizens Association Mailing List, May 5, 1996) I would add
that a process like the NTIA online conference on the future of the Net,
such as was held in Nov. 1994 about the questions of universal service, and
of access, needs to be examined and learned from by the FCC and Congress so
that they can structure a process appropriate to the problem.
Also, I am sending, as an appendix, a summary I did of the NTIA online
Nov. 1994 conference, which was presented as a talk at the N.Y.P.L. and in
Canada at the Telecommunities '95 conference and included in their
conference proceedings.
Appendix: Summary Paper on the NTIA Online Conference [See Issue 7-1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[11] Letter to the Editor
[Editor's note: Louis Dequesada suggested in a letter in our last issue
that Apple, IBM and/or Compaq make an economy model computer for people of
limited income. There were a few responses to Lou's suggestion. One
response was that for the time being the Volkscomputer Lou called for is
only available as a used 486 or 386 computer. Another response was that
Lou had no reason for complaint since there are many computers for between
$2000 and $3000 and surely there are no Americans who can't afford that.
The following is Lou's response.]
Hello,
Too bad my suggestion didn't catch on. I mean it's ok with me if they
feel fine paying Apple, Compaq, IBM, etc. $2000-$3000 for a computer that's
going to be obsolete in less than 6 months. But I am sorry, I don't pay
that kind of money for something that cost them $250 to put together.
It's amazing how this country has changed. I remember when Ford &
Chevrolet used to be called "the poor man's cars", now a half ass Chevy
will cost you $15,000 stripped, no frills. And some people seem to be
happy with that. It won't last though. I think at some point in the near
future, the "yuppies" will go out of style, in fact the process is all
ready underway and they don't even know it.
Louis Dequesada
dequesa@library1.cpmc.columbia.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>[12] Free-Nets and the Politics of
Community in Electronic Networks (1)
Garth Graham,
Telecommunities Canada (2)
[Editor's note: The following article provides some of the perspective of
the Canadian Community Networks movement about how the Internet is helping
to change the world.]
Talking About What People Do In The Information Society: A Problem Of
Vocabulary
The transition to an information society is not about technology. It's
about social change. In making that point, I sound as if I'm about to
present a radical social manifesto. But that's not my intention. I'm
reporting on how the information society looks and feels based on the
experiences emerging from electronic community networks. I'm really just
another traveler coming back from cyberspace. I have some experience of the
birth and growth of one type of community network, Free-Nets. This essay is
a reflection on what we can learn from them about how life will actually be
lived in the communities of cyberspace. I'm trained in the politics of
neighborhoods, and I've always found that the neighbors understood the
consequences of development better than city hall.
Cabinet Minister Jon Gerrard referred to Free-Nets, in his address to
the Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC) conference,
Toronto, February 2, 1994, as one of the important building blocks of the
Canadian information highway. This was the first acknowledgment of their
role by a senior political leader in Canada. We don't yet know how this
awareness will translate into action in public policy.
In Free-Net, I believe that Canada already has a concrete example of
how the public will behave in the information society. I think we should be
promoting community networks as keys to self-governance, to revitalizing
communities and to meeting the public interest in universal network access.
But, through my own involvement in the National Capital Free-Net, I have
become quite concerned that the Canadian policy agenda regarding
information and communications infrastructure is ignoring this opportunity.
In fact we all now do live in an information society, and the Canadian
information and communications "infrastructure" is not just technology. It
represents the essential fabric that organizes and connects our social and
economic institutions. The level of public participation in a variety of
recent TV and radio phone-in programs on the information highway is
evidence that Canadians generally are aware of this. But, in a public
policy debate that should allow us to understand how our society is
changing, social policy issues and very real grass-roots agendas are being
ignored. In particular, the words "community" and "citizenship" have been
totally submerged by the word "consumer" in the debates framed by Canadian
high-tech business. This is entirely in keeping with business purposes, but
the same economic vocabulary also dominates government discussions of
public policy.
We need to know much more about the social, political and economic
consequences of the choices we make in our transition to an information
society. But, metaphors that describe the new social interactions of an
information society in terms of building "things" misrepresent their
purposes. The vocabulary of "constructed" superhighways, electronic
"infrastructure" and "reinventing" government evokes images of technology
rather than human possibility in people's minds. It seems to me that the
language used to articulate the "vision" of a privately constructed
electronic superhighway is quite deliberate, quite consciously chosen, and
quite wrong. These words obscure the public interest.
I feel privileged to be present at the formation of a new dream in
national mythology. Never-the-less, a myth is a myth. An "electronic
superhighway" is more of an idea than a physical reality. Whatever "it" is,
it isn't "infrastructure." We are not "building" a new national dream of a
railroad to the Pacific of the imagination. Presently, there is no capacity
within Canada to address the consequences of new forms of social
integration occurring in networks. And there is great danger in viewing
citizens as mere consumers of electronically delivered products and
services. In this case, describing the unfamiliar in familiar terms does
not really clarify its significance.
In the name of economic necessity, these expressions depersonalize
actions that have profoundly personal consequences. Some of those
consequences are exciting, some are appalling. But we are using them to
translate the practice of citizenship into the art of shopping. The public
needs to take back the language of discourse. An "electronic superhighway"
sounds both high-tech engineering and also imaginary. It sounds like a
concept we can safely ignore. But this concept, however described, is
having a socio-economic impact on physical geography and spatial
relationships that far exceeds all the hydro dams, pipelines or roads to
resources that we've ever built. Where's the socioeconomic impact
statement? It's far past time that we knew who benefits and who pays.
Cyberspace As Virtual Economic Geography
When the public decides to define its own frames of reference, the
concept of community should be moved to the top of the agenda. Of course,
electronic communities have no more physical reality than electronic
highways. We can anticipate the ways that virtual communities are changing
our experience of the real world. But to discuss how we will inhabit both
virtual communities and the physical communities, I too have to resort to
spatial metaphors.
Think of cyberspace as public space, not "infrastructure." The
gateways into it are the function of information technology, and therefore
have a price. But the metaphor of "infrastructure" as used in the U.S.
National Information Infrastructure and the Canadian Information and
Communications Infrastructure suggests that cyberspace is not a place but a
thing that we build. By the use of this metaphor, business is enclosing a
public common for private gain. They are occupying the transit lounges and
shoreline properties on the oceans of imagination.
Consider the historic "backbones" of Toronto's "infrastructure"
development. Its geography has continually changed to reflect its primary
economic transportation corridor. In its early days, when transportation
was by water, its geography had a shoreline orientation. Then, in the
1850s, it began to reshape itself, oriented toward the railroad. Then, in
the Twentieth Century as we became a car culture, the economics and systems
of truck transportation steadily improved. Today Toronto is oriented to
Highway 401.
But what are the social-geographic consequences of an electronic mind
way as the nervous system of our connections? If there is a partial
orientation it will be multidimensional, like brain cell organization. In
subsistence-hunting cultures, people can carry all the tools they need for
living with them. Then they can move to where the food is. In a knowledge-
based economy, people will carry all the tools they need for thinking and
connecting others with them. Then they can move in cyberspace to where the
ideas are. But I don't think any of us has a very clear idea of where they
will move in the physical landscape they actually inhabit. My best guess
is, don't invest in office buildings.
What Is A Free-Net?
In the Ottawa Citizen, 25 January 1994, there was an article with the
title, "High-tech Highway Gathers Speed: Quebec Project To Link 34,000
Homes To Electronic Networks By Next Year." The article states this is, the
first test-run on Canada's electronic superhighway, which will cost $750
million over the next decade. I'd suggest that this Videotron Group project
is not really the first test-run. National Capital Free-Net was, and it
isn't going to cost $750 million per decade. It's going to cost $4 million
per decade. Information technology managers call the National Capital Free-
Net an "application," but the people who are in them see community networks
as a social movement. We think that support for community networks has the
biggest social and political payoff of any strategy for transition to the
information society.
There are at least twenty-nine community-based Free-Net committees in
existence in Canada. A national association of Canadian community networks,
called Telecommunities Canada, is currently organizing. By the time
Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver join Ottawa, seven million Canadians will
have access to a Free-Net.
Tom Grundner, founder of the community networks movement and head of
the U.S. National Public Telecomputing Network, recently summarized the
goals of Free-Nets. He said, "A Free-Net is not something that you do for
the community; it is something the community does for itself. I do not
believe America's progress into the Information Age will be measured by the
number of people we can make dependent upon the Internet. I believe that,
if we enter this age with equity at all, it will be because of people,
building local systems, to meet local needs. That's you, building Free-
Nets, in cities and towns all over the country. That is how we will enter
this new age with equity!"
Our understanding that community computer networks must somehow be
primarily "information" systems is also blocking an awareness of their true
social potential. Of course people do go to Free-Nets to "retrieve
information." But the essence of Free-Nets is interactive computer mediated
communications, not information provision. It's definitely not a passive
broadcast medium. It has a connectivity that makes it unique. But this
sense of connection that we feel also makes it difficult to describe Free-
Nets to those with no hands-on experience of telecomputing networks. In
fact, while demonstrating Free-Net online is always exciting, talking about
it to the unconverted is a sure recipe for glazed eyeballs. If we are to
accelerate progress in bringing communities online, somehow we have to find
better words to express its qualitative difference from traditional
communications media.
David Sutherland, President of National Capital Free-Net, has verbally
outlined its objectives. He summarized these as, "If you like the
information highway, let people use it." Here is what he said:
+ Use connections to make community work better;
+ Provide for contact and dialogue among organizations that provide
services;
+ Educate people in the community about the utility of telecommunications
services;
+ Educate kids, not just in "computer" skills but in access skills;
+ Educate for universal computer literacy so that Canada doesn't fall
behind;
+ Act as a model for future systems nation wide.
Free-Nets have become comfortable with using a "public library of the
21st century" analogy to explain their purpose. But again a familiar
metaphor contains conceptual problems. The library is about externalized
community memory. It's a repository of selected knowledge, organized for
retrieval. Its organizers rarely enter into direct mediation of the value
of those stored memories when they are retrieved for use. A network is
about conversations, and there is really very little distinction between
those who provide in formation and those who use it. Everybody talks all
the time. Everybody sends and receives. The joy of the medium comes when
you want to really listen. With digitalized dialogue you can go offline and
think about your reply.
All of this is to say that the payoff for navigating the networks is
more in the learning that occurs, than it is in the informing. Learning is
particular to the individual, and it comes from risking your ideas in
conversations with others. There is an National Capital Free-Net draft
document for information providers that implies the best contact person to
connect an organization to the community via Free-Net is probably in the
"communications staff." Frankly I doubt that there is a best person. John
Coates, conference manager for The Well, has referred to the role of
"cyberspace innkeeper." When organizations really do become learning
organizations perhaps there will be appropriate connectors. But I don't
think most organizations are ready for cyberspace innkeepers yet.
Organizations expect communicators to get messages out. They don't expect
them to meddle to any significant degree in channeling incoming messages
and in the sort of internal learning that will change the purpose of the
organization. Maybe they should.
Access To The Tools Of Community Connection
For those of you committed to action in the service of Free-Nets,
Howard Rheingold's The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier, (3) is a must-read. He finds a consistent pattern in the
development of Net tools such as electronic mail, packet switching, TCP/IP,
BBSs, Usenet, Internet Relay Chat, and MUDS. That pattern is spelled out in
the following two quotes: "The essential elements of what became the Net
were created by people who believed in, wanted and therefore invented ways
of using computers to amplify human thinking and communications. And many
of them wanted to provide it to as many people as possible, at the lowest
possible cost. Driven by the excitement of creating their own special
subculture below the crust of the mass-media mainstream, they worked with
what was at hand. Again and again, the most important parts of the Net
piggybacked on technologies that were created for very different
purposes."(4)
"As big government and big business line up to argue about which
information infrastructure would be better for citizens, it is the right of
the citizens to remind elected policy makers that these technologies were
created by people who believed that the power of computer technology can
and should be made available to the entire population, not just to a priest
hood. The future of the Net cannot be intelligently designed without paying
attention to the intentions of those who originated it."(5)
The act of putting software into the public domain makes the
technology self-propagating and prevents anybody from trying to establish
exclusive ownership of the tools. It is the active participation of
thousands upon thousands of communities in designing and maintaining their
own spaces on the Net that will sustain its rich potential for shared
experience, and its characteristics as the defining institution of an
information society. The magic of the Internet is a product of its organic
and uncontrollable growth. The initiative to use computer mediated
communications to build communities, and to integrate smoothly with the Net
as it evolves, should be readily and cheaply available to anyone who wants
to try.
But the CANARIE project, an intermediate upgrade of the conduits for
Canada's Information and Communications Infrastructure, recently refused a
proposal to rewrite the FreePort software, the platform sustaining Free-
Nets, because it wasn't "commercial."
The Significance Of Computer Mediated Communications
Universal access includes the freedom to communicate. Interactivity,
or computer mediated communications (CMC) is about human connections. It's
about talking. It serves a society that is egalitarian and decentralized.
It serves individuals and communities, not mass audiences.
We've got the bizarre notion that access to information is somehow
about access to a bunch of value neutral facts. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Let's take the example of a teacher who has just got access
to the Internet via SchoolNet. She's fought with the Board and principal
for a phone jack in the classroom. She thought that the big problem was
connecting, but now she knows that over 1000 schools have done that
already. It's late at night, and she's out surfing the Internet, and
suddenly she realizes that the Internet is not what she thought.
It's not a universe of facts. There's too much raw human imagination
there, too much beliefs, opinions, perversions, darkness, cynicism and
bright shining passions to think about it in terms of passive facts. Anyone
can and does imagine and express anything to anyone anywhere. And then she
thinks of those thirty kids in her crowded class. Without parental
authority, she's going to give them this window into every recess of the
human mind! Suddenly, they too can know anything they want to know, imagine
any possibility, but also find someone somewhere that wants to talk about
it. And she knows that the institution she represents is consciously
designed to channel and control children's thinking. She knows its present
purpose is to socialize them in the direction of acceptable social
behavior.
Now here, through the interface, is the entire panoply of possible
human behavior. Here are ideas that, in the old social order, we'd never in
our wildest flights of fancy imagine were possible. Some so dark they
plunge you into despair. Some so exciting they change the direction of your
life. WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO? Teachers call this the "content" problem,
and they are terrified.
The recent National Capital Free-Net online annual general meeting (a
risky demonstration of faith in electronic democracy) actually had a
teachers' motion on the table to allow for group memberships. It was
defeated. The intention of the motion was to mediate access in order to
sustain the group nature of classrooms. This intention evoked a defensive
response from the open access spirit of individual responsibility inherent
in Free-Nets. But the problem of balancing individual expression and social
integration that the teachers' motion identifies is real and will continue
to assert itself.
Virtual Community and the Social Structure of Text
Do networks develop community? If, as Tip O'Neil said, "All politics
is local," how will we govern in a society where anyone can connect to
anyone else, anywhere on earth? What dimension of locality will you use to
define your politics? On the Internet, there are communities of "interest"
that are located in the mix of ideas, conflicts and issues surrounding
specific social concerns. The people that belong to them feel that virtual
communities of common interests are communities. Net-based discussion
groups are inherently political arenas where the exercise of politics lies
in being able to shift opinion in the context of the conversation.
Does a sustained online discussion build a community? It sure feels
like it. A community that communicates only by text still has lots of
social structure. As outlined below, social actions at the levels of
metatext, surface text and subtext are all different, and they therefore
mediate the shape of outcomes in different ways. Every concern or alarm in
the discussion, every thread, has its expression in nested shells of
significance:
Metatext
Everybody is somebody's subsystem. The metatext is where the SYSOPs and
moderators plot their exploitations of the locals.
Surface text
Dialogues and diatribes that create factions of opinion, as the threads of
conversation knit and unravel. I like the idea of topics or issues as
"strange attractors" of conversational pattern.
Subtext
Where gossip, the real glue of social control, operates by e-mail to
reinforce factions.
When you go to new places you learn things, especially about yourself.
When you participate in online discussions, you confront strange people in
a strange place, cyberspace. In effect, you are opting in and out of many
communities, with many different norms and values. Occupying each of them
requires personal adjustments similar to those experienced by immigrants
and travelers. This process of adjustment is called acculturation.
For example, the word "newbie," describes those new to the Internet.
In small town meetings, speakers often state, "I've been here ten years and
I say " The next speaker will begin with, "I've been here twenty years "
These are value statements. They qualify the expressed opinion as
authoritative. Posting the word "newbie" implies an assumption by the
poster of agreement on the inclusive value of experience in defining a
community structure of insiders and outsiders. The poster expects the
newbie to acculturate to the norms and values of the discussion before
saying the right words in the right way. But, on the Internet, the open
season on authority figures is longer than the one for newbies.
Does computer mediated communications qualify the process of
acculturation in any way? It does allow for a wider latitude in social
experiment because the culture of a network community evolves rapidly and
is more readily subject to manipulation. The persona, the face we prepare
to meet the faces that we meet, is not the only dimension of social
presence that is optional. To some degree, so is the emergent social
structure of any online discussion. The values that set the limits of
inclusion and exclusion become explicit in the three levels of the text.
Everyone there has chosen to participate. But now, because they can see
what happens as a consequence of their participation, they also have more
choice over how the structure of discussion evolves. Choices, perhaps
unconsciously, are made about the shape of the group. In other words, even
how it feels, its physicality, is, to a certain degree, self-selected. One
model of how computer mediated communications structures community might
look is as follows:
PROCESS AXIS
sustaining inclusiveness
via attention to emotional needs
|
|
maintains self-identified | diffuses or questions
community affiliation | the validity of continuing
| community affiliation
CONTEXT AXIS |
local ________________________|_____________________ global
issues | issues
|
causes community | larger context defines
oriented action | or dissolves community
|
|
sustaining inclusiveness
by actions related to tasks
"Local" means both geographic neighborhoods and virtual communities of
interest. The context continuum of local to global issues is concerned with
questions of defining and maintaining the boundaries of a related set of
concepts. Some issues are within the context of the conceptual set and are
therefore local. Some issues transcend the conceptual set, and therefore
establish the context that situates the local set. The process continuum
measures whether time is spent on maintaining social dynamics or performing
tasks. The point where the two axes intersect is an attractor, or
equilibrium point around which the dynamics of the discussion oscillate. If
there's no equilibrium then the discussion threads diminish and community
starts to dissolve.
Of course this model describes any informal discussion. How does
locating it in cyberspace make a difference? Computer mediated
conversations are self-referential. There's the discussion itself. Then
there's the embedded model of the discussion that emerges as it unfolds. We
all see what's going on. The dynamic nature of the structure of a self-
organizing community becomes explicit. It is shared as common knowledge as
it occurs. As Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores said, "networks of
recurrent conversations are the core of organization."(6) The difference
between hosting an online discussion and hosting a cocktail party with
intense conversation is that the level of feedback in the online discussion
is substantially more available for analysis before response. Also everyone
supplies their own beer.
It's Not Just the Technology That's Converging
It is commonly understood that change in information technology is a
cause and consequence of a convergence in the electronic tools that create
our communications media. What is not commonly understood is that this
convergence on the technical level is paralleled by a similar convergence
on the social level. Dichotomies, not convergences, are often the basis of
our current understanding of organizational behavior. We objectify and
classify abstract concepts, expecting them to be either one thing or
another. When we are able to connect anyone's workspace with anyone else's
workspace, suddenly we can associate any idea with any other idea. Then all
the distinctions we make between senders and receivers of messages, between
talking in conversation and informing, between the content of a message and
its carrier, between public and private life, all these conceptual
compartments dissolve into each other.
CMC Converges Senders and Receivers
In computer mediated communications, the distinction between senders
and receivers is almost meaningless. The community is the system, not its
user. As the Net evolves, the software becomes the primary component of the
communications media that sustains community within it. A bit of grammar
may help to illustrate this:
The active voice is the Internet voice. It would say, "The
community uses the technology."
The passive voice is the voice of traditional system design. It
would say, "The technology is delivered (by someone who owns it) to the
community as end-user."
In the dialogue among communities and central government that the Net
now makes possible, the power must come from the community. In an
information society, we can no longer say that government is "delivered" to
the people. Assuming "delivery" as the basis of a relation of governors and
governed misses a fundamental difference between network culture and the
assumptions that underlie our present organizations. Whatever the theory of
democratic government, our present reality is that "the government" and
"the people" are separate. In networked information systems, these
distinctions between senders and receivers of information, between
providers and users of services, begin to disappear. It is perfectly
reasonable to expect that computer mediated communications can integrate
service deliverers and service receivers so that the power to govern a
system of services and the responsibility for the system's performance can
shift to the system's beneficiaries.
CMC Converges Conversation and Information
There is one quality we can maintain in community networks that will
contribute to the goal of enhancing local community life. One sure route to
success lies in always remembering the concept "conversation."
"In a conversation, you always expect a reply. And if you honor the
other party to the conversation, if you honor the OTHERNESS of the other
party, you understand that you must not expect always to receive a reply
that you foresee or a reply that you will like. A conversation is
imminently two-sided and always to some degree mysterious; it requires
faith."(7)
But we've begun to merge conversation and information into the same
milieu, without a clear idea of what that means or how the relation of
conversation and information might be enhanced. What is the meaning of
face-to-face via the interface? How does medium and message interact to
alter the fundamental rules of the "conversation"? In fact, if we restate
the problem of access as a problem of integrating information and
conversation, this takes us beyond confrontation between experienced CMC
users and beginners, or between technoids and social activists. It gives us
a different design specification to stimulate the thinking of the community
network builders. In fact, I see this as a critical problem for the
information society, not just community networks. It's just that, in
community networks, we bump into it faster.
CMC Converges Conduit and Content
In regulating telecommunications, a distinction is made between the
carrier of a signal and the content of a signal. The telephone company is a
utility that allows me to talk but it does not ordinarily interfere with
what I say. In the same sense, the hardware and software of a community
network is the utility, the conduit, that allows for connections among
people and organizations, whereas the volunteer subcommittees and huge
group of information providers is the catalyst for the content that is
discussed. Does the separation of carrier and content in the telephone
analogy still hold? Is there a need to ensure a greater separation of
conduit and content than the governing structures of Free-Nets have
anticipated? I think not.
Community networks provide conduits for individuals, social groups,
and government services in a community to interconnect with each other in a
new way. The service they provide is access to interactive, computer
mediated communications channels. Community networks do not and must not
"represent" anybody. They are neither elected, nor appointed, nor employed
to act with authority on behalf of any agency or person. Community networks
provide a powerful medium for the structuring of dialogue in the service of
whatever ends their members define for themselves. It is essential that, in
both perception and reality, community networks are broadly based and
member driven. If this isn't a medium that can sustain direct
participation, what is?
What works best in computer mediated communications is the absence of
power based relationships. It is mutual interdependence that defines
community, not hierarchy. Participation is a matter of individual choice.
The levels of participation in a successful online dialogue are very much
related to an expectation that participation will result in a shared
experience. We should build our local and national structure on our
emerging understanding of the medium's advantages. We should not rely on
previously owned assumptions of what "organization" requires to make it
work.
CMC Converges Public and Private Identities
When everyone both sends and receives, we will need to sharpen our
skills in constructing personas. When someone abusively flames someone else
in a global online discussion, they are actually confusing their public and
private selves. Isolated by the computer screen, they are applying learned
private discourse behaviors in a space that is entirely public. Since they
are physically at home, they feel at home. They are not accepting the also
present virtual reality of being on stage before an audience of thousands.
When someone e-mails President Clinton directly and he replies, even though
they know about the analytical filters and artificial intelligence
preparing the response, they imagine that they are talking with Clinton's
private self and not a constructed public image. We know that Prime
Minister Jean Chritien does not do this now, but he will soon.
True access to the electronic mind ways will depend, not so much on
technological awareness, but on learning behaviors that are appropriate to
the presentation of the self in an everyday life that is electronically
mediated. In the political economy of knowledge, the only scarce resource
is attention. When everybody sends as well as receives, a critical decision
each person makes is about audience. When everyone broadcasts,
consciousness of the theater required for the public presentation of self
intensifies.
Citizens, Not Consumers: Responsibility and Community
Majid Thracian wrote: "The crucial test of the [Telecommunities]
movement will be in whether or not this new combination of forces will be
able to overcome the present techno-structures of domination. The movement
may do so by giving a new lease on life to the representative and corporate
institutions of democracy as well as by creating some new institutions for
direct democratic expression."(8)
Whatever the socioeconomic purpose of community networks is, it is not
primarily to deliver "community" as a consumer of network products and
services. CANARIE does not show any commitment to "give public access to
the information superhighway," because, so far, it has very little
comprehension of what a "knowledge-based society" or true public access
represents. We must not sell community networks on the basis of their
potential to train consumers of network based products and thereby increase
demand for commercially supplied network services. How will we ever
comprehend the differences between an information-based economy and a
market-based economy, if one of the vital instruments of change, community
networks, is perverted into an instrument of the declining paradigm?
From the experience of Free-Nets, there are four assumptions about the
public interest in the information society that I find important, but very
difficult to communicate. An awareness of their significance doesn't really
occur until you've wandered into cyberspace. That is to say, they are
reports from the other side. They represent important choices for everyone,
but choices that are more apparent to those who have already made a
conscious transition to an information society. These truths about
cyberspace I hold to be self-evident:
+ We can develop "community" with information technology;
+ Networks are more about conversations mediated by computer
communications than they are about access to information;
+ To make the networks function as the neurons of social connection, it
is essential that the technologies be designed to place all of the
power to connect and to communicate into the hands of the individual;
+ In the view of economics, all that is left of our social role in public
life is our duty to consume. In an information society, there is a very
real possibility of regaining the role of citizen.
My own vision of the information society includes a positive push
toward social change in the direction of communities that are less
"representative" and more participative, based on individual
responsibility.
I'm not in Free-Net to gain access to more electronic toys, and in the
process give my hard earned money to those who already have more than I do.
I'm in it because of the potential to discuss, understand and act on common
problems with my real and virtual neighbors.
If our emerging "knowledge society" merely defines everybody as
"consumers" of information then we fail. There's much more at stake in
cultural survival than the success of markets. Universal access to that new
global conversation means universal participation in shaping its content.
That's the mission and purpose of community networks. I think we can
develop virtual communities that help geographic communities work better.
But, if we don't make the idea of community our central purpose in
developing the Canadian Information and Communications Infrastructure, we
can certainly cause real communities to disappear.
I don't think that we can tell our stories of traveling in cyberspace
if we've no solid understanding of the points of departure. Knowing our
place in the world is essential to knowing our place in the story. In fact
there's a word for local awareness in the field of development. It's called
indigenous knowledge. A Free-Net is a mere gateway. One that did not create
a rich texture of universally shared local expertise, would be strip mining
the Internet.
I think that we can catch the attention of Canadians with the message
of community networking as the self-governance they've been looking for. I
think we can promote community networks as significant in terms of the
information age; providing computing power to the people and meeting the
public interest in universal access to national and international high-
speed networks. I even think, given the evidence of demand for National
Capital Free-Net's services, there will be support for community networking
projects that help create an expanded vision of a vital noncommercial and
non-governmental sector in the new electronic environment.
The federal government has stated three strategic objectives for the
information highway: jobs, cultural identity and universal access. I would
submit that Free-Nets address these objectives head on. And they do so in a
manner that is compatible with the excitement generated by that prototype
of information society institutions, the Internet. In Free-Nets, the
volunteers that participate in bringing a community online are investing
their own time in learning new skills and roles. Free-Nets intensively
collate community knowledge and experience, leading to a bottom-up global
sharing of Canadian identity on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. And
Free-Nets provide a powerful model of how universal access to the
information highway can actually be used. They don't create a society of
consumers. They do support citizens in sustaining communities that better
meet their needs. Whatever process Canada uses to decide its response to an
information society, it must take into account the transformable power of
Free-Nets.
Notes:
1) May be cited as: Garth Graham, "Free-Nets and the Politics of Community
in Electronic Networks," Government Information in Canada, 1, No. 1.6
(1994).
2) Garth Graham, Telecommunities Canada, NGL/CANIS (Community Access
Network Information Services), Box 86, Ashton, Ontario, K0A1B0,
aa127@freenet.carleton.ca (613) 253 3497
3) Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1993).
4) op. cit. p. 67.
5) op. cit., p. 70.
6) Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and
Cognition (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1986) p. 158.
7) Wendell Berry, What Are People For? Essays (San Francisco: North Point
Press, 1990).
8) Majid Thracian, Technologies of Power (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1990).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[13] Creating the Broadsides for Our Day
Conversations on Early Usenet
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
[Editor's Note: The following is part of a longer article that will be
serialized in the next few issues of the newsletter.]
"Democracy requires a vigorous exchange of ideas and
opinions....Newspapers might have served as extensions of the town
meeting. Instead they embraced a misguided ideal of objectivity and
defined their goal as the circulation of reliable information the kind
of information, that is, that tends not to promote debate but to
circumvent it." Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites
"Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles
they grow from." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
"They've shown me clearly that electronic communication will change
the shape of our world, and that we'll see its effects in our
lifetime." Richard Brodie, Post 5/10/81, sf-lovers list
I - Joining Usenet
In August 1981, the message "Hello Usenet" was broadcast to the sites
then on the Usenet network. With this introduction, the Department of
Computer Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU)
in Cleveland, Ohio, joined the online network of computer sites that were
exploring the potential of online communication. The introductory message
proclaimed: "We would like to announce our connection to Usenet." After
describing Case Western University and the computer facilities of the
Computer Engineering and Science Department, the message explained that
once the department got an auto-dialer modem, "We would be interested in
increasing the number of nodes we communicate with, and would like to take
a more active part in Usenet communication."
When CWRU connected to Usenet, there were already over 70 sites
connected via both hard links and telephone lines so computer users at
those sites could share news and views with each other via this new form of
computer facilitated communication.(1)
Usenet was begun in Fall 1979 through the efforts of graduate students
Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis at Duke University, in Durham North Carolina,
and Steve Bellovin, a graduate student at the University of North Carolina
in Chapel Hill. The original vision that gave birth to Usenet was of a
computer network linking together computer users working with the Unix
operating system at University and research sites. Unix was a programming
environment created by research programmers in 1969 at Bell Labs. By the
mid 1970s, university and research sites learned of this powerful computer
programming environment and were able to get copies from Bell Labs to use
at their sites. Unix, however, came with little documentation and no
promise of technical support. During this period, a Unix users group
developed with members at various academic and research sites which came to
be called Usenix. By 1979 Usenix was having semi annual meetings to make it
possible for users to share their problems and their accomplishments. The
graduate students who created Usenet had hoped that it would become an
electronic newsletter linking the various Unix sites so they could maintain
communication in between Usenix meetings.
In summer of 1980, a graduate student, Mark Horton, brought his site
at the University of California in Berkeley onto Usenet. He began to send
some of the discussion groups that were available as mailing lists on the
ARPANET, onto Usenet. Through a gradual process, those on Usenet also began
to be able to post and to contribute to these mailing lists.(2)
In a post on Usenet dated Dec. 31, 1981, Mark Horton lists the various
sites on Usenet.(3) A large number of these sites were university computer
science departments or computer centers. Others were various AT&T Bell Labs
research sites around the U.S., or research departments of computer related
companies like Microsoft, Intel, Digital Equipment Corporation, Tektronics,
etc.
During this early period, Usenet was distributed without charge by the
cooperative efforts of those at the participating sites. Several posts on
Usenet explained Usenet was considered as a form of network newsletter.
There were different subject areas that were discussed as part of a variety
of topical newsgroups. There were newsgroups to discuss Unix, like FA.unix-
wizards, other computer related categories, like FA.micro, newsgroups about
the Usenet network itself, like NET.news, NET.general, NET.misc. And there
were newsgroups on a wide ranging set of other interests like NET.foods,
NET.space, NET.rec.birds, etc.(4)
Reviewing the posts on Usenet during this early period (1981 82) helps
to identify the principles that shaped its early development. A post on
Usenet from the early 1980s estimated that 80% of the traffic on Usenet was
from ARPANET mailing lists.(5) Thus it will be helpful to look at some of
the discussion on the ARPANET mailing lists made available on Usenet to see
the foundation these discussions helped set for Usenet.
II - FA.unix-wizards and the principles of Unix
One of the most popular newsgroups on Usenet during this early period
was the newsgroup FA.unix-wizards. This newsgroup was primarily distributed
on the ARPANET as a mailing list (hence the prefix FA meaning "From
ARPANET"). The description of the mailing list explained: "ARPANET mailing
list for Unix Wizards. Anything and everything relating to Unix is
discussed here. This list is gatewayed to the ARPANET mailing list but
appears like a regular newsgroup to USENET."
Since the Unix operating system represented a powerful and low cost
programming environment, there was an incentive for Unix users in the
academic or research world to utilize it. However, it was difficult to use
Unix in isolation and there were great benefits to be gained from being
part of a community of users who would help and support each other in
solving the problems they encountered with Unix.(6) The Unix philosophy
includes a set of principles that grew out of and nourished its
development. These principles also proved important in the development of
early Usenet.
One of the fundamental principles on which Unix was built is the
principle that one should not reinvent the wheel. If one person has created
a program or software tool, it is important to share it with others so they
do not have to repeat the same work themselves. Invoking this principle, an
early post on Usenet explained, "Hmm, another case of wheel re-invention I
guess. I also have the requisite routines" the poster explained, to create
a program to determine the time on the computer. Another poster, noting
that several such programs had been created, wrote, "I too would be
interested to see the verdict on which routine is the best."
Often queries would be posted on Usenet asking others for information
or advice. This would make it possible to build on other's experience. For
example, one poster wrote, "does anybody know of an ARPANET (BBN 1822)
interface for the Intel Multi-bus IEEE standard 796. We could always back
up Ron Crane's old parallel port interface, but would prefer something
already done on the slim chance that it happens to exist." Hoping to work
collaboratively with others who were interested, the post continued, "It
just occurred to me that a SUN workstation would make a dandy ARPANET
Ethernet gateway. Is there anybody else out there in Internet land who
might want to share efforts."
A comment in the FA.unix-wizards newsgroup from Dennis Ritchie, one of
the creators of Unix, noted that Unix owed many of its achievements to the
fact it built on the work done at MIT to create the Compatible Time-Sharing
System (CTSS). Ritchie wrote, "The name 'rc' comes from RUNCOM, which was
the rough equivalent on the MIT CTSS system of what UNIX calls shell
scripts. Of course RUNCOM derives from 'run commands.' Yet another piece of
evidence for my thesis," Ritchie claimed, "that UNIX is a modern version of
CTSS."
An article, "The Trouble with UNIX" by Donald A. Norman, was published
in the November 1981 issue of Datamation.(7) The article presented Unix as
being too difficult and frustrating for users. In response, several on the
Unix Wizards mailing list on the ARPANET and on the FA.unix-wizards
newsgroup on Usenet began a lively discussion of the problems and benefits
of Unix. Among these responses was one that explained, "Well, you see what
kind of stuff gets into Datamation. I don't understand these things; many
of the criticisms are right, but the facts are categorically wrong! UNIX
could benefit from some 'normalization'...but the claim that UNIX does not
present a simple set of principles is the most incomprehensible statement
he could have made. That is ALL UNIX does, and that is precisely why he
(the author of the Datamation article, ed) doesn't like it!"
A poster went on to question why the author of the Datamation article
used Unix if he found it such a problem. Another post explained that though
there were problems with Unix, it had proven valuable to many, including
the secretaries at the Computer Science department of the University of
Illinois. "While our secretaries occasionally have had problems using UNIX,
they have tried several times (unsuccessfully) to get the department head
to obtain a UNIX system for their exclusive use." Describing how Unix was
the result of a cooperative effort by many people, Steve Hartwell at MIT,
wrote, "Why do people keep talking about UNIX as if it were a person, or
ONE BIG PROGRAM? We are really talking about a large set of programs and
libraries written by individuals, not the HAL 2000. Every single program,
and every subroutine and system call, was written by some individual, who,
in my mind, is RESPONSIBLE for the reliability, consistency, improvements,
and documentation for that thing. I do not intend to criticize the efforts
of the usg [Unix Support Group, ed], or any other groups who have taken on
the immense task of providing a set of software they agree to be
responsible for. Our complaints/ discussion of aspects of the UNIX
operating system indicate that the job is not complete. They KNOW that. I
think that it is the user's responsibility to identify and report problems
in a clear, specific, and non-judgmental narrative, not FLAME ON! [usg
should also improve the means to do this.]... Does it always mean lowering
to the least common denominator, to improve the software & documentation?
Ridiculous. If the road signs are too high, what are we going to do
shorten the poles or raise the road?" he concluded.
The debate over Norman's article demonstrates how those participating
on Usenet newsgroups and the ARPANET mailing lists represented a diversity
of views. This online network provided a medium through which they could
debate their differences to determine the principles at stake in a
controversy.
One post pointed to Ted Nelson's book Computer Lib and its critique of
hard to use systems. Nelson, the post explains, praised Unix. "That too was
proper," the writer explained, "UNIX is indeed a powerful tool and one that
encourages tool-making by its users. It would certainly be a shame if a
priesthood of hackers developed around UNIX...." Another poster describes
how the intent of criticism had to be to improve the code, and that there
was also a need to respond in a helpful way to users. "There will ALWAYS be
questions," the post explained, "and how you deal with them will affect how
people will grow." But one had to maintain high standards in what was to be
done with Unix documentation, he cautioned, "I don't want to use a system
which is tailored to the lowest denominator. [If the road signs are too
high maybe you're on the wrong road.]."
Another poster proposed that there was a need to distinguish between
the interface and the documentation of the Unix system. The writer
believed that Norman's article had confused the two and the discus sion was
continuing that confusion. Maintaining that the interface to Unix was being
criticized because there was inadequate documentation, he wrote, "I would
agree with suggestions to improve the documentation." He went on to
explain that there were only two forms of Unix documentation, short
descriptions of what Unix commands did, called "man pages" (i.e. pages
from the Unix manual), and the computer code with its comments. He felt the
man pages were only casually created and so not always adequate to provide
the help users needed, but that going to look at the source code which had
"(VERY few comments)" didn't provide much more in the way of assistance. He
proposed several additional levels of documentation to help solve the
problem, including introductory documentation, more examples in the
existing man pages, a brief documentation that would be provided online, a
more thorough system of documentation of the assumptions and problems of
the system, and more internal commenting in the code. "The code written
for UNIX," he explained, "is perhaps the least documented I have seen on
any system." He also questioned why the books about the code which were
written by Professor John Lions, at the University of New South Wales in
Australia, for an earlier version of Unix, v.6, hadn't been updated for the
recent Unix version, v.7. "I thought the Lions course books were excellent.
Why they haven't ever been updated, especially with the money we at B.T.L.
[Bell Telephone Labs, ed] spend growing UNIX experts is beyond me. I would
think that documentation at the various levels would make code maintenance
easier and be cost effective," he concluded.
Lively discussion and debate helped Usenet pioneers argue out their
views about Unix, and a wide range of other issues and problems and helped
to establish the forms and procedures for Usenet to grow and flourish.
III - FA.sf-lovers and the debate over technology versus humanism
Sf-lovers was another of the important mailing lists on the ARPANET
which was also available on early Usenet as FA.sf-lovers. It was for the
discussion of science fiction and related topics. In May, 1981, Jim
McGrath, the new moderator of the mailing list, posted a farewell to
Richard Brodie. He described how Brodie had been "the person responsible
for the first version of this mailing list almost two years ago."
In his farewell to those on the list, Brodie describes how he started
the mailing list. He took a leave from Harvard and went to Xerox-PARC in
June 1979. Shortly afterwards, he sent out his first sf-lovers message. He
writes: "Over a year and a half have gone by since the first sf-lovers
message went out (It was a list of the Hugo Awards from the 1979 Worldcom
in Brighton, England). They've been a good one and a half years; they've
shown me clearly that electronic communication will change the shape of our
world, and that we'll see its effects in our life times."
"The list," he explained, "has grown enormously far beyond my
expectations and has reached the point where many hundreds of people read
the daily Digest."
Describing how sf-lovers began, Richard Brodie explained, "I started
sf-lovers by logging into one of the public-access MIT 'Incompatible Time
Sharing' (ITS) systems probably MIT-DMS, although it might have been MIT-AI
and editing a text file that contained the names of all the distribution
lists. I then inserted a system announcement onto the same system
announcing the availability of the list."
Originally, each message sent to the mailing list was distributed to
all those who subscribed. Soon, however, the e-mail to the subscribers
became overwhelming and a digest form was created. Digests were collections
of articles submitted to a mailing list and sent out as an issue, rather
than as separate posts, as newsgroups made possible.
Recalling how the sf-lovers digest was created, Brodie explains, "I
believe it was the release of a major SF movie possibly SUPERMAN that
swamped sf-lovers to the point where it was made into a digest."
The discussion on FA.sf-lovers during this period included
reminiscences of children's fiction such as the Danny Dunn and Miss
Pickerall series of children's books. Other children's books were critiqued
as well. For example, Byron Howes from the University of North Carolina
explained how he felt Mrs Piggle-wiggle books were "worse than the
children's literature of the late '40s and early '50s promoting a kind of
mindless expectation of conformity." Children's book series described
include Danny Dunn, Tom Swift, Rick Brant, and Freddie the Pig stories. One
post explained how the author of the children's book series Mad Scientists
Club made an effort "to be as technologically accurate as possible." There
was also discussion of TV and radio cartoon characters who encouraged an
accurate view of technology. One such character was Astro Boy.
A frequent contributor to the FA.sf-lovers noted that Astro Boy was
one of his favorite animated characters. He described how Astro Boy, a
robot, was "steered...toward using his special abilities for the good of
society." Reminding others of the Amazing Three Theme song, he posted the
lyrics, showing how they captured the dilemma of technology, that it can be
used for social good or harm:
Spaceman with a mission
You must make a very big decision
With your solar bomb you could destroy us,
Or save the world or save the world
Another contributor, Mike Greenwald at MIT Multics, described an Astro
Boy episode where budget cuts threatened the survival of the Institute
where he was created, "He was actually `shut off', but was resuscitated
when an emergency arose during which he proved his worth by saving the
world...." A post by Ted Pedersen described how Astro Boy was the creation
of Osamu Tzuka the 'Walt Disney' of Japanese animation. "Based on a
successful comic book character," he wrote, "there was an explosion of
Japanese science fiction."
Contributors to sf-lovers also discussed science fiction movies,
criticizing them if the science was inaccurate or if the message presented
was anti-technology or hostile to machinery. Dave Tauretzky wrote, "There
are two features I pay attention to in science fiction movies: future
sociology and future technology."
Describing how ARPANET authorities determined that a Film-Buffs
mailing list should not be carried on the ARPANET since that "would be
pushing the use of the ARPANET too far beyond its research-oriented
mandate," one poster proposed accepting the decision to avoid jeopardizing
the other existing ARPANET mailing lists. "I yield to those people's better
judgment," he wrote reluctantly.
However, he longed "for the day when such strictures disappear!" He
conceived of a future when WORLDNET would make it possible to access large
mailing lists for $10/year for the 'postage', "and Large Lists rule the
world!"
Other discussion on the list during this period presented hopeful
forecasts of the future. A review of a recently published book, 2081: A
Hopeful View of the Human Future, reported that the book predicted a three-
day workweek, factory work done exclusively by robots, household robots
that shop, drive cars, send mail, mow the lawn, and record radio and
television shows, air travel at 6,000 mph and land travel at 800 mph. The
author, Gerard K. O'Neill, proposed that computers, automation, space
colonies, energy and communication, would "drive the changes of the next
century."
A poster was able to contribute the words of TV theme songs from the
1960s because not only did he have a good memory, he had an audio aid. "In
the early '60s," he wrote, "I had a cheap little tape recorder. I had this
silly habit of recording TV themes "
Complaining about unscientific accounts in science fiction, Jeff
(E.jeffc at Berkeley) explained that "Science is not in the process of
making arbitrary rules. Science is in the process of discovering the lawful
ordering of the universe and it is inevitable that in the future, someone
will come up with something that will supersede what we know today."
After discovering a factual error in one of his posts, Lauren
Weinstein at UCLA noted how posting leads to verifying one's information.
He wrote, "Actually , I did get one piece of direct mail claiming I was
wrong...one of the nice things about having 3000 plus people reading this
stuff is that there is always somebody who can correct any errors. At
least, I THINK that's one of the nice things?"
Describing why he was attracted to science fiction, David Dill at CMU-
10A wrote, "a substantial body of science fiction DOES deal with issues of
science and technology. The appeal of this literature to me is not the
ability to supply convincing explanations for hypothetical science or
technology, but to explore the effects of scientific developments on
people. Thus, science fiction is frequently fiction about the IMPACT of
scientific discoveries, not the pursuit or act of scientific discovery. A
major reason," he explained, "that science and technology are prominently
featured in so much 'speculative fiction' (or whatever) is that they are
major factors determining the nature of a society if you change them, you
have a new social system (or civilization) to speculate about." Noting that
science fiction should document how technology could be used for good or
bad, Ron Newman at Xerox, explained that "current events in the U.S.
demonstrate that technological advances need not go hand-in-hand with
social progress."
IV - NET.space and the Debate over Public Funding of Science Research
Another newsgroup on Usenet during this period that discussed
technology issues was NET.space. An opening message to create the NET.space
newsgroup noted that it would "distribute the articles from FA.space in
undigested form, and anything submitted to it will go into fa.space."
In an early post on NET.space, Mark Horton documents how the most
interesting of the ARPANET mailing lists were fed into Usenet and many of
the contributions to the ARPANET mailing lists came from those on Usenet
(i.e. those contributions posted by e-mail addresses such as
somewhere!somewhere!somebody@Berkeley.)
Horton was explaining his disagreement with a post by Bob Amsler who
maintained that the associated ARPANET mailing list was "an internal
communication without 'public' distribution ... and that there were many
people on it 'employed by the government'" who needed to be aware of space
developments. Horton, however, pointed out that the digest was fed into
Usenet "which is neither the ARPANET nor tightly controlled." And that the
contributions were "in effect a newsletter, not mail, and as a contributor
you have no control or knowledge of who is getting it."
Posts on the NET.space mailing list included summaries from the wire
services and discussion of the Congressional space budget. One post about
budget cuts warned that, "The chairman of the House subcommittee on Science
and Technology said that the Reagan budget plans could threaten our space
program." It described how the 1983 fiscal budget called for maintaining
the level of spending for NASA rather than increasing it. "Not only could
this hurt our planetary program, but also threaten the shuttle program."
Paul Dietz at U.S.C.-ECL raised the question, "why should the
government be spending anything on space?" He admitted that this was really
part of the broader question "why should the government be spending money
on anything?"
Since investment in space research would be for the good of the
company or world, he asked why those with money wouldn't be investing in
it. And he ended his post, "Comments, rebuttals, bricabrac poison keyboard
netnotes are welcome..."
The question led to a heated discussion of whether humanists or
technologists benefit society more. One of the posters sparked the
discussion by taking the position that those developing technology, rather
than those developing humanistic theories, had solved more social problems.
He wrote, "While one hates to destroy cherished illusions, it's hard to see
that any major social problem has ever been solved by a `humanist' or other
form of social theorist. Typically," he continued, "it has been engineers
and hard scientists (those materialistic, crass, and soulless men) that
have provided the solutions to the major social and political problems of
their day. Slavery and hard, grinding muscle labor at poverty pay, to take
two classic examples from the 19th century, weren't eliminated by the
wailing of philosopher but by the designs of engineers, and by the money of
financiers. Admittedly, this is largely counter-intuitive. I suspect the
reason that this apparent paradox holds is that people will generally
optimize their own condition subject to constraints, and the constraints
are always a lack in some way or other of resources. Technology tends to
free resources, thus loosening the constraints and providing a higher level
of 'potential' for most individuals, which they will happily take." He
referred the reader to the economic writings of the 18th century Scottish
economist Adam Smith and the 20th century American economist Milton
Friedman.
In response came a post quoting Adam Smith's book, An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, on the need for public
investment, "THERE REMAIN those enterprises of such great value to all, and
of so little value to any one, as to require public investment."
The poster explained: "What institution has the task of looking ahead
twenty years? Surely not investment combines, stock companies usually look
at the quarterly report. So, if it's desirable to have basic research. who
is going to do it?"
Challenging such use of public funds another poster wrote, "I reject
this. Who judges the value of a project? Not the person forced to
contribute . Government investment (public investment is a misnomer)
removes any choice the unwilling taxpayers have. It puts the 'public good'
above individual rights." Gene Salamin at MIT-MC proposed eliminating all
non-defense government expenditure as long as all government social
programs were also ended. In a post titled "Moderator filtration of
flames," another poster explained that it was "amusing to see the
Libertarians (I assume) who are heavy users of this medium complaining
about governments spending their money on things like ARPANET and space
research." He noted, "I guess its a normal survival drive. Those sucking at
the teat want the milk for themselves."
Challenging the proposal that government spending should only go to
defense, Mike Inners noted that according to that logic "there is no reason
to fund even defense." He explained that the rationale which would
logically flow from such an argument would be "If I want to be defended, I
will voluntarily contribute to my local police, local NRA chapter, national
military of my choice, etc." But he noted that "Everyone (except maybe the
most radical Libertarians) agrees that some functions require mandatory
contributions."
He went on to describe some examples of expenditures that require
public funding: "Space exploration, in common with basic research, has the
property that the benefits do not accrue to the organization performing the
work. The benefits are distributed among many people who did not invest.
Unless you impose severe restrictions on information flow, use of
technology, mobility of employees, etc. there is no way that I as an owner
of a firm doing (for example) free-fall medical research, can make every
beneficiary pay for the benefits he is getting. I can't even get back my
investment in all likelihood. But the benefits have historically greatly
outweighed the costs of such research."
He explained how funding space exploration required public funding as
it didn't yield the profit that private enterprises require: "In the not-
so-distant future, space industrialization/exploration/colonization has the
potential to significantly improve conditions for the entire society.
Again, there is no way for an investor to recover profit from this. While
it is not worthwhile for any small group of people to finance space
exploration, a larger group finds it worthwhile since the cost can be
spread thinner."
R. M. King continued the argument. He wrote: "1) Much of what is
necessary to develop space is unpatentable often because it is in the realm
of pure research. An example of another invention that grew out of pure
research is semi conductors, which of course grew out of solid state
physics research. It would not have been possible for a company to recover
the costs of their research, even by patenting the transistor, because
other devices were promptly invented, using the same physics."
He added: "2) Patents are only good for seventeen years. Even those
pieces of space hardware that are patentable may not reach the peak of
their utilization within seventeen years of conception. 3) While this may
seem like a pragmatic rather than a moral argument, governments have
historically been involved in blazing trails."
Providing other examples, he proposed that there be a tax checkoff so
people could determine if they wanted to contribute or not.
Commenting on the 1982 U.S. Presidential State of the Union speech,
King proposed cutting "spending in everything except defense, and that
means cut spending in space in particular." Also he noted that the term
"Defense is a misnomer. We don't have any defense, we have only strategic
deterrent. But that's a matter for ARMS-D, rather than SPACE," referring to
the mailing list ARMS-D."
Contrasting the view that denies that there can be any definition or
support for the public good, several of those on NET.space debated whether
the humanist or technologist contributed more to the public good. Paul
Lustgarten at Bell Labs Indian Hill, wrote: "I take strong exception to the
sharp dichotomy [the poster] assumes between humanists and technologists: I
consider myself to be both, and see many others here at work on these nets
(Usenet and ARPANET) who I would describe similarly."
He proposed: "I think it is those of us who are *more* than just
technologists who are in a position to affect society the most. The
technology by itself doesn't tell you how to get it out of the lab, where
to put it, how to use it, or even WHY ANYONE SHOULD BOTHER!"
He titled his post "'humanists' and 'technologists', NOT disjointed
sets!" and he presented the dictionary definition of a humanist, "humanist,
n. A person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare
[Random House College Dictionary] to show it did not exclude
technologists."
A post by Steve Kudlak (FFM at MIT-MC) defended humanists. He wrote,
that HUMANISTS and TECHNOLOGISTS fight over much, but "Both want to see the
world changed for the better. Humanists," he continued, "(philosophers,
artists, writers, etc.) influence the world more indirectly, but they do
exert, in my view, a considerable influence. By pointing out things they
see in the world and how they feel about it, artists and writers definitely
influence the social climate that the technologists types work in and the
like. Technology types," he continued, "that I have known have been
seriously influenced by 'works of art' especially literature and this
causes them to do things differently than they would if they were not so
influenced."
"Technology types," he observed, "do things that at their best give
power to the people. Like the power to express my ideas to many people in
many different areas quickly."
He went on to note that "Most technology types are not cold, crass
individuals at all, and 99% of them bleed if you prick them."
Commenting about the stereotypes that exist, he explained that, "Once
upon a time science, technology and art were not considered mutually
exclusive realms. It would be nice," he ended his post, "if we could
recapture some of that rather than fighting about which is 'better' and
'more useful'."
Tom Wadlow added that while scientists or technologists are often
affected by art or participate in art, artists he knew were "afraid of, or
claim to despise technology."
Continuing the discussion about government funding of space research,
a post by J. C. Winterton pointed out, "we get the problem that no private
organization is big enough to finance space exploration and research." He
proposed that governments were too often conservative about supporting the
investment and funding needed to make big enough leaps.
Pointing out the precedent in history for government assistance to
subsidize certain kinds of explorations, Rick (pcmcgreer) cited the East
India Company and Hudson Bay Company.
Contributing to the debate over technologists and humanists, Jim
McGrath (JPM) explained, "First, apologies to everyone on SPACE for
discussing what is probably not an appropriate topic for this list." He
then went on, "But since the subject came up..."
"Saying technology is more important than the humanities," he wrote,
"is stupid, since technology, the APPLICATION of scientific knowledge, has
to be directed by social goals determined by the study of the humanities
(and social 'sciences'). However, saying humanities is more important than
technology is equally stupid, since man is, above all else, a TECHNOLOGICAL
animal. Our use of tools, more than anything else, has contributed to our
current state of civilization. Trying to understand man without his tools
(please, no comment on sexist language) is a fruitless endeavor that will,
ultimately lead to failure."
But he cautioned, "One problem we face is that there are significant
numbers of people who believe that technology in and of itself, can solve
all problems. This is wrong, since those very problems CAN NOT be defined
or specified by a strict examination of technological alternatives.
(although some constraints as to what is physically possible can be
supplied by technology) one MUST appeal to the knowledge lodged in the
study of Man, the humanities."
He continued, "Another problem we face is the presence of a large
number of people who believe that Man's tools and his tool making capacity
should be ignored when examining the proper role of our race in the
universal scheme of things. One cannot make ANY decisions about what man
should do or should become, without examining how Man interacts with the
physical Universe and this is the domain of Science and Technology."
"Frankly," he concluded, "I have no doubts that there are far more
people causing the second problem than the first. At least most
technologists believe that they SHOULD be aware of the Humanities, while
many people in the Humanities feel no obligation to understand the first
principles of Science and Technology. So while we need more people
knowledgeable in both areas, the lack of technological understanding among
the people studying the Humanities seems to be the most severe problem we
are currently facing."
Jerry Pournelle at MIT proposed, "If you burned all the art, people
would be miserable but alive. If you burned all the technology, above 75%
of the population would starve. Which should we do?" he asked, "(Maybe
neither?)," he concluded.
Emphasizing that technology and humanism are not independent of each
other, Wadlow responded: "My point was not that one is independent of the
other, but that they are both facets of the same jewel. If you burned all
the art, would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer
programs. If you burned all the technology, would you destroy moog
synthesizers, or synthetic-fibre paint brushes? Art can be functional, as
technology can be artistic. Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act
of artistry or technology?" Adding to the discussion of the need for
government support for research, a post by Joel Rubin answered, "As I
recall, off hand, the British East India Company and the Hudson's Bay
Company and the British India Company were NOT supported by laissez-faire
types. They supported MERCANTILISM which was precisely what laissez-faire
types were against."
Steve Harley pointed out that distinctions between humanists and
technologists weren't so obvious, "Consider trying to label the Reagan
government either technologist or humanist...& give up, but not without a
fight, then, fondling the notion that technologists are more 'socially
valuable' than humanists; try to reconcile the war machine." Harley, added,
"for the record, I am an artist (writer and painter, mostly) who supports
himself by programming computers. I know a number of other artists. I don't
know any ARTISTS who despise technology. I know a few humanists who
disparage technology, but I tend to be very thoughtful, so I think a lot of
technology is not worth having like food processors & neutron bombs. I know
a lot of scientists too & a fair number of them have a very limited
appreciation of art. The scientists/technologists I know who do appreciate
art tend to be humanists as well, so I think the comparison of techo-humano
is balderdash. There are just people who are more limited than others.
However, they don't bother me as much as people who are DEPENDENT on
technology."
In the midst of the discussion came the complaint that NET.space was
not an appropriate newsgroup for the discussion and instead a new newsgroup
should be created for the discussion called net.space.philosophy.
Answering the complaint, was the response, "I see no reason why they
should NOT be in this digest. Assuming that the material in each digest
accurately reflects the amount of contributions, then everyone's missive is
making it out on the list anyway, so what's to complain about?"
"Off-hand," he continued, "I don't see where the humanist technologist
dichotomy is MORE appropriately discussed than concerning space, that field
being a major area of technological endeavor with possibly the largest
potential impact upon humanity. In order to make sense of technology," the
poster continued, "the human factors must be added to the equation.
Ignoring one for the other is perhaps expedient but ill-fated (if I had to
chose art would lose)."
Another post proposed that the Voyager pictures were a demonstration
that space research produced works of art. "Most works of art are much more
expensive for the number of people who can see them and appreciate them,"
he noted. "(All we need to do is distribute prints of the best of the
Voyager pictures to each and every citizen, and we'll truly have the
cheapest masterpiece of art ever produced.)" He went on to note that "the
rest of the space program is science, not art, mostly. We get vast amounts
of crucial information that is a first step towards engineering to actually
make use of space for our benefit. Science always comes first," he
commented, "then a lot of hard engineering, then profit."
"Thus I don't agree with your claim," he added, "that the space
program is just an expensive work of art with spinoff. It's a medium-priced
science project with some artistic spinoff and also random-product
spinoff."
Another post was an Associated Press article of February 3, 1982 about
developments in Washington. It described how that the U.S. Office of
Management and the Budget had recommended killing many space projects. The
article documented how strong opposition from scientific organizations
battling against the cuts led the White House to restore some of the
funding for space research in the 1983 budget. The article concluded,
"considering the proposed cuts, much was salvaged."
These discussions over the role of technology and the need for
government funding occurred on NET.space while there was the ongoing
political battle to save space funding. Describing these efforts, Jerry
Pournelle at MIT-MC, noted the role that the L 5 Society (a group
advocating putting human colonies in space) played in helping to weaken the
budget cuts. He wrote: "The whole space community, with I think, particular
credit to L-5 society deserves a couple atta-boys. I'll take a bit of the
plaudits because of the Citizens Council activity (and Danny Grahams
efforts plus Newt Gingrich's were somewhat influenced and aided by the
Council) anyway it is not what we wanted, but it is less than we feared."
John McCarthy, one of the earliest pioneers of research in time-
sharing and Artificial Intelligence, and a Professor at Stanford (JPM@SU-
AI), credited Pournelle for his work organizing the battle against the
budged cuts, "I think you deserve considerable credit for this result."
Pointing out that in the history of the U.S., very few legislatures
have technologists or scientists helping to make the laws, another poster
asked "In our history, [has there] ever been a legislature having more than
a few technologists or scientists in it?"
Pournelle described how there would be an L 5 sponsored space citizen
convention in Los Angeles, California on April 4 6. Another poster noted
that the L 5 sponsored citizens space Convention would have Robert A.
Heinlein and Fred House as the guests of honor. The keynote speaker would
be Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator of NASA. (former Secretary of Air
Force) and Newt Gingrich, then the U.S. Congressional Representative from
Georgia and CoChair of the Congressional Space Caucus. Others listed
included convention co-chairs Jerry Pournelle and Milton Stevens, noting
that the "Purpose [was] to get enthusiasts and professionals together, and
to generate a strategy for the advancement of the space program."
The discussions in the various Usenet newsgroups and the ARPANET
mailing lists show how there was a commitment that the new technology and
the forms it made possible be used for socially beneficial rather than
harmful purposes. Contributors to Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists
during the 1981 82 period recognized that it was necessary to be active to
have technology serve useful purposes. Discussion on the long term social
benefit gained from scientific and space research demonstrated that
newsgroups and mailing lists made it possible to clarify the underlying
principles on an important issue like the need for public funding of
technological and scientific research. These new communication forums also
made it possible to announce efforts to affect legislation and to set up
public meetings with those in Congress responsible for approving the
funding of science and technology programs. Thus early Usenet and the
ARPANET mailing lists helped to establish the importance of scientific
research and of government funding of scientific research to the long term
interests of a society. They also provided the means to monitor
Congressional activity and to announce programs making such efforts.
[To be continued]
Notes:
(1) Case Western University went on to become the sponsor of the Cleveland
Free-Net which made Usenet available to the Cleveland Community and
established a prototype of community networking that has spread around
the U.S., into Canada and other countries in Europe and around the
world.
(2) See Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by
Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben,
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
(3) Mark Horton's list of Usenet sites Dec. 31, 1981.
(4)Newsgroups also carried as mailing lists on the ARPANET were named
FA.xxxxx for "From ARPANET", those only carried on Usenet, were named
NET.xxxx
(5) Usenet posts made it easier to respond to the posts, or to the author
of the posts, while with a digest you had all the articles collected in
one issue and so it was not possible to automatically respond as with a
post.
(6) See for example Peter Collison, "UNIX: The Cult", USENIX Association,
Winter Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 1987, Jan. 21 23,
1987, pg. 22 28.
(7) Datamation, pg 139-150.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[14] Genora (Johnson) Dollinger
(April 20, 1913 - October 11, 1995)
[Editor's note: Early issues of the Amateur Computerist described the
tradition of the Flint Sit-Down Strike and the effort to build a democratic
UAW with uncensored local newspapers. Several of our early issues included
contributions from some of the pioneer sitdowners who were then alive.
Sadly, one more of these important fighters, Genora (Johnson) Dollinger,
died in Fall 1995.]
Genora Johnson's name is well known to anyone familiar with the
details of the Great Flint Sit-Down Strike in 1936-37 waged by autoworkers
against the giant General Motors Corporation. That strike won autoworkers
their first instances of union representation by unions of their own choice
and lead to the unionization of many industrial workers in the USA. In
particular, Genora rallied the women in Flint to support and participate in
sitdown strike battles and events. She organized a child's picket line
which drew world wide attention to the strike. Genora helped initiate and
organize the Women's Auxiliary and the Women's Emergency Brigade (the Red
Berets). In every important battle of the 44-day strike, Genora played a
crucial role.
When the sitdown strike began, Genora joined the supporting picket
line and was available at the strike headquarters. She refused to be
relegated to the kitchen even though she felt there was important work to
be done there too. When many women were confused by the strike and upset by
the loss of their husbands' time and income, Genora and other active women
took up to explain the importance of the strike to these women. Out of this
debate among women of different points of view emerged the Women's
Auxiliary which set up a daycare center, a first aid station, food
gathering, home visits, and public speaking classes. The Women's Auxiliary
made many important contributions to final victory of the strike.
Because of the violence perpetrated by the General Motors initiated
back-to-work forces like the Flint Alliance, Genora lead the effort that
resulted in the formation of the Women's Emergency Brigade. Genora
organized the Red Berets, as they were called, on a military basis. The
women of the brigade trained themselves to carry and wield heavy clubs.
They used the clubs to break windows in Chevy Plant 9 when tear gas was
used against workers in that plant. Those workers were setting up a
diversion so Chevy Plant 4 could be successfully occupied by sitdowners.
Genora and the Red Beret lieutenants also played a crucial role preventing
the first police on the scene at Plant 4 from challenging the securing of
Plant 4 by the strikers. Genora and her lieutenants argued with the Flint
Police long enough for the rest of the Emergency Brigade to arrive and to
setup a strong picket line. By then the plant was firmly in union hands.
Kermit Johnson, Genora's husband at the time, was the Flint rank and
file leader of the strike. He devised the diversionary plan that lead to
the successful capture of Plant 4. Plant 4 manufactured the engines for all
the Chevrolet brand automobiles that GM was still making in plants outside
of Flint. Genora remembers being instrumental in getting Kermit's plan
adopted. The successful occupation of Plant 4 broke the resistence of
General Motors. Negotiations followed shortly in Detroit. Despite ten more
days of tactics by GM to break the strike, by February 11, 1937 a one page
contract was signed. The workers and their families had won an historic
victory.
After the sitdown strike, General Motors continued its fight to
reverse the workers' victory. Genora was black-listed and couldn't work
anywhere in Flint. Her marriage to Kermit also ended. She moved to Detroit
where she was active in UAW locals especially Local 212 at Briggs
Manufacturing. To get a job she had to use her second husband Sol
Dollinger's name. For her activity at Briggs she was beaten in her sleep by
two thugs. There is evidence that her beating was part of a string of such
attacks instigated by Detroit corporate officials in collusion with
others.*
Genora recovered from her beating and continued her organizing within
the UAW and also in a variety of other ways. She ran for the United States
Senate in 1948 as a candidate for the Socialist Workers Party. During the
Viet Nam War Genora was an early president of the Women for Peace anti-war
organization. She argued vigorously and successfully to win the Detroit
area union leaders into public opposition to the war.
As the years went by, Genora kept contact with her fellow and sister
sitdown pioneers. Annually during the 1980s, around February 11 there was a
memorial issue of The Searchlight (newspaper of UAW Local 659)
commemorating the victory of the Great Sit-Down Strike. A contribution from
Genora appeared in these anniversary issues of The Searchlight. About ten
years ago she returned to Flint to attend a commemorative picnic. There she
criticized Henry Kraus whose book about the sitdown had mis-portrayed the
leadership role of the rank and file in the sitdown. In front of the
assembled surviving sitdown pioneers Genora critiqued Kraus's account and
demanded that he write an accurate account.
And, as the older sitdowners died in recent years, Genora often sent a
message of remembrance to be published in The Searchlight of the role they
played in the strike and through the years.
Even in her eighties, Genora tried to remain active, for example
working toward the formation of a labor party in California. But her health
was failing. On October 11, 1995 she died at the age of 82. As her friend
Floyd Hoke-Miller might have said, another warrior in the cause of working
people was now gone to get some rest. Genora's long years of hard struggle
and sacrifice are an inspiration for those trying to keep up the fight for
human progress.
- See e.g., the recent booklet, Striking Flint: Genora (Johnson) Dollinger
Remembers the 1936-37 General Motors Sit-Down Strike, as told to Susan
Rosenthal, L.J. Page Publications, Chicago, Il, May, 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------