The Amateur

Computerist

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Summer 2016 Netizens, South Korea and Participatory Democracy Volume 29 No. 2

Table of Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Celebrate 20

Anniversary of Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

South Korea’s Candlelight Protests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

South Korea’s Blue House Scandal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Korean Candlelight Model for More Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Candlelight Demos: Laboratory for Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21

Significance of the Net and the Netizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30

Rise of Netizen Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43

What Is of Value to Me On the Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 70

New News Forms Can Improve Policy Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 73

Doing Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 94

Netizens Celebrate a Decade of Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 98

Welcome to the 21

Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 100

Introduction

In his research and writing about the impact the net and netizens could

have on the future struggle for more democracy, Michael Hauben wrote:

We are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks are

being redesigned from the bottom up. A new more democratic

world is becoming possible.

(“The Net and the Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People’s

Lives”)

While the netizen research and writing by Hauben demonstrates the

Page 1

potential contribution by the netizen and the net toward a “new more

democratic world” that Hauben predicted could come into existence, the

practices being developed in the Candlelight Revolution in South Korea

are exploring how to make this potential a reality.

This issue of the Amateur Computerist is dedicated to both marking

the 20

Anniversary of the publication of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet and to recognizing the

significance of the Candlelight Revolution that has emerged in South

Korea over the past two decades.

The recent candlelight demonstrations that gripped South Korean

society for six months (from October 2016 until March 2017) succeeded

in achieving the impeachment and then prosecution of the president, Park

Geun-hye, for the corrupt activities she and her colleagues were part of.

Two of the articles in the issue, “South Korea’s Candlelight Protests”

and “South Korea’s Blue House” provide background on the particular

developments of the 2016-2017 candlelight demonstrations.

The significant element of what has happened in South Korea this past

year, however, is only secondarily whether the former public and private

parties will be adequately punished for their abuse of the public. More

important is the fact that the citizens of South Korea not only succeeded

in determining the public interest but also in finding a means to direct the

politicians toward implementing their public interest obligations.

How this has been accomplished needs to be understood and built on.

The article “Korean Candlelight Model for More Democracy”

summarizes some few of the analyses contributed by researchers and

others toward exploring the goal of the Candlelight Revolution, i.e., to

provide a means beyond representative democracy, for a new form of

democracy that supports the participation of the grassroots in more of the

decisions that determine the present and future of society.

These recent developments, however, build on a longer tradition of

candlelight demonstrations in South Korea.

One critical aspect of the 2008 candlelight demonstration which lasted

for 106 days was the role of netizens in helping to explore the political

alternatives to representative democracy. The article “The Candlelight

Demonstrations in South Korea as a Laboratory for Democracy” explores

this important 2008 precedent.

Page 2

The article “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of

Netizens Impact on Democracy in South Korea” puts candlelight

demonstrations into the context of earlier South Korean netizen activities.

The article “Considerations on the Significance of the Net and the

Netizens” explores how the pioneering research and writing by Michael

Hauben recognized that along with the development of the Internet was

the emergence of the netizens. Netizens, for Hauben identified those

online citizens who devoted time and effort to achieve the public interest

goals that Netizen empowerment and contributions make possible. The

article also considers contributions by computer pioneer JCR Licklider and

media theorist Mark Poster to formulating a theory of the nature and

importance of the netizen phenomena.

Other articles in the issue help to put these developments into the

broader context that is being developed through the Candlelight demon-

strations in South Korea.

[Editor’s Note: The following is a proposal made to the re:publica 2017

Conference organizers for a celebration of the 20

Anniversary of the print

publication of the book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and

the Internet. It was accepted.]

Celebrate 20

Anniversary of Netizens:

On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Short Thesis:

“Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen),”

wrote Michael Hauben in 1993 when he discovered that along with the

Internet there had emerged a new form of citizen and citizenship. He

called this new form of citizen “netizen.” The article Hauben wrote

Page 3

introducing his research and the concept of Netizen to the world soon

became the first chapter of the book Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet. Come celebrate the 20

Anniversary of this

book with us.

Description:

In 1993 Michael Hauben recognized that along with the Internet there

had emerged the netizen. He observed that the netizen was not all users,

but the online user who recognized the empowerment the Net made

possible and who sought to utilize this empowerment to contribute to the

Net and the bigger world it was part of.

This May marks the 20

Anniversary of the print edition of Netizens:

On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. The book was first

published online and then in a print edition in English and in a Japanese

translation.

We want to mark this occasion by a presentation celebrating the

milestone the book represents. While there are many publications

exploring the social impact of the Internet, it was and continues to be rare

for a book or other publication to document and make the case for the

importance of recognizing the social impact of the Net and Netizens.

Our presentation will explore the historic and scientific roots of the

phenomenon, the early vision, the research that led to the recognition of

the emergence of the netizens and the continuing development of both the

theory and practice of netizens and netizenship. Several names stand out

in the history of this achievement. Among these are J C R Licklider for the

guiding vision, Michael Hauben for the pioneering research and scientific

insight for recognizing that along with the Internet had emerged the

Netizen, and Mark Poster’s work realizing that the netizen could be the

social force waging a successful struggle against the harmful effects of

globalization.

The netizens have carried forward the torch so the Internet can

continue to evolve and thrive. Particularly, the contributions of the South

Korean and Chinese netizens have turned the concept of netizens into a

national laboratory for democracy.

We plan two informative presentations. One presentation will include

a case study of the candlelight revolution by citizens and netizens in South

Page 4

Korea which demonstrates in practice the efforts toward forging a new

governance model for participatory democracy. The second will argue that

netizens are having a sustained impact and are contributing to developing

Chinese society in the direction of greater citizen participation.

There will be time for comments, contributions and discussion by

those joining us for the presentation. Leif Kramp has written about

re:publica, “Every May, Berlin transforms into the European capital of

‘netizens’.” What more fitting venue to mark the 20

Anniversary of the

print edition of Netizens than in Berlin as part of re:publica 2017.

Come celebrate this 20

Anniversary with us.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared on Feb. 7, 2017 on East

Asia Forum at:

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/02/07/south-kor

east-candlelight-protests/]

South Korea’s Candlelight Protests

by Sun-Chul Kim

Political protest has always propelled South Korea’s democratization.

It was through the mass uprising in April 1960 that South Koreans ended

the autocratic rule of Syngman Rhee. The democracy that followed the

‘April Revolution’ was short-lived, but the subsequent military regimes of

Park Chung-hee (1961–79) and Chun Doo-hwan (1980–87) had to cope

with a recalcitrant opposition that tirelessly protested authoritarian rule. In

June 1987, another mass mobilization eventually forced the authoritarian

rulers to concede democratic reforms.

Political protest did not slow down with South Korea’s transition to

democracy. On the contrary, street protest became the new normal as

democratic space expanded. Students, workers, civic organizations, and

even opposition political parties and lawmakers took to the streets in

protest of government policies. Observing the pervasiveness of protest in

South Korea in 2008, an Al Jazeera reporter came to the conclusion that

‘protest has become part of [South Korean] culture.’ Given this context,

Page 5

the recent candlelight protests that erupted in response to the scandals of

President Park Geun-hye and her confidante, Choi Soon-sil, were no

isolated event.

The use of candlelight as a form of protest traces back to 2002 when

two teenage girls were killed by U.S. armored vehicles on military training

maneuvers. A proposal for a candlelight vigil circulated among internet

cafes after the news spread that the U.S. soldiers responsible for the deaths

of the Korean girls had been acquitted in the U.S. court-martial. Thou-

sands gathered in Gwanghwamun Square to commemorate the victims.

The candlelight vigil was picked up by activist groups and turned into a

symbol of the movement against the perceived injustice. Ever since 2002,

mass demonstrations in South Korea have taken the form of candlelight

protest.

The advent of the candlelight protest signified important changes

distinct from earlier protests. In the past, it was impossible to picture a

protest scene in South Korea without conjuring up the image of violent

clashes and the exchange of teargas and Molotov cocktails between

protesters and riot police. Violent protests persisted into the 1990s, well

after South Korea’s democratic transition, but the emergence of the

candlelight protest offered a new platform that enabled protesters to

convey their seriousness of intent through peaceful means.

Specifically, the candlelight protests of the past three months have

been remarkable in their absence of violence, despite the high political

tension and massive number of protesters roaming the streets. On the one

hand, this had to do with greater tolerance on the part of the police and

favorable court rulings that opened up new marching routes previously

unavailable to the protesters – a trend not uncommon during times of

revolutionary change. But it also had much to do with the adept handling

of the rallies and marches by the organizers.

The weekly candlelight protests were organized by Emergency Action

for Park’s Resignation, a coalition of more than 1500 civic organizations.

In the past, large coalitions were often plagued by fierce infighting among

competing political groups. To avoid discord, the anti-Park coalition set

rules for decision making based on the lowest common denominator

among participant organizations.

Its role was focused on providing political space for citizens of all

Page 6

walks of life to come and express their views freely. From booking

celebrities to setting up lost-and-found services, the coalition paid close

attention to the details of the rallies to make them more accommodating

to all.

Combined with unprecedented levels of frustration and anger among

South Koreans, the outcome was explosive. Week after week, the coalition

successfully mobilized millions of South Koreans on the streets of dozens

of cities and channeled their anger into a powerful political message.

Eventually, the candlelight protests pushed reluctant lawmakers to cast

their vote to impeach the president in the National Assembly, marking one

of the most significant events in South Korea’s political history.

The success of the anti-Park candlelight protests illuminates the

growth and maturity of civil society in South Korea. At the same time, it

brings to attention the weakness of its party system as a mechanism for

political mediation. South Korean political parties have been characterized

by their extreme fluidity, by Mi-yeon Hur which involves frequent splits,

mergers and name changes.

In the absence of stable political parties with which to communicate

political agendas and develop a shared identity, civil society organizations

often bypassed the mediation of political parties when it came to

promoting new agendas or resisting policies. Consequently, direct action

was frequently used as leverage vis-à-vis the decision makers.

The latest candlelight protest set an unusual example in that street

protesters and opposition lawmakers found themselves in sync throughout

the impeachment campaign as well as the subsequent legal proceedings.

But this rare accord is unlikely to be sustained as the ruling party goes

through another split and the fractured opposition field prepares for an

early presidential election in late spring, pending confirmation of President

Park’s impeachment by the Constitutional Court.

Lacking a reliable partner in party politics, the anti-Park coalition will

likely break into multiple political lines as the competition for the

president’s office deepens. Precisely because they lack reliable partners in

party politics, however, they will most likely get together again and return

to street politics when there is another serious breach of democratic

principle. Protest politics will continue in South Korea.

Page 7

Sun-Chul Kim is Assistant Professor of Korean Studies at the Department of East Asian

Languages and Cultures, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared on the E-International

Relations website* on Feb 21, 2017 at: http://www.e-ir.info/2017/

02/21/south-koreas-blue house-scandal/.]

South Korea’s Blue House Scandal

Since October 2016, every weekend, Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul

has been flooded with hun dreds of thousands of people demanding the

ouster of current South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Park faces

allegations that she helped her close confidante, Choi Soon-sil, extract

money from South Korean conglomerates to use for personal gain, while

Choi Soon-sil was arrested on charges of fraud and abuse of power.

Pundits outside South Korea tend to focus on the unusual and sensational

aspects of the issue, such as Choi’s shamanism, how much control Choi

enjoyed over Park, or when and how Park would step down. However,

these aspects hardly give a clear understand ing of the Blue House

scandal

and the series of ongoing public demonstrations in South Korea. The core

issue amid the chronic scandals engulfing South Korea is the country’s

distorted economy and immature democracy. The title of “11

largest

economy in the world” is the wrapping paper that covers the political

discrepancies and socio-economic disparities that South Korean society is

currently experiencing. Outsiders must understand that what South Korean

citizens are demanding is not only the removal of an incapable and a

pathetic ruler but also meaningful changes to the rigged economic and

political structure.

More specifically, what South Koreans want to achieve is the

completion of the 1987 democracy movement and revision of the

chaebol-driven economic system.

To fully grasp what is actually going

on in South Korea, people must understand how defective and inefficient

the South Korean political system has been and how South Korean

Page 8

presidents with their imperialist power have pursued economic policies

that have deteriorated economic justice and social equality. This will allow

people to understand that the recent candlelight protests are an extension

of the pro-democracy movement that started decades ago, how such

detestable leaders were able to occupy the Blue House, and why South

Korean people call their home country “Hell Chosun.”

South Korea’s Democracy: Already but Not Yet

South Korea is witnessing what I would call a “civil revolution

without bloodshed,” a citizen struggle against authoritarian rule and for a

true democracy. Politically, South Korea has been under a quasi-

democratic system where public opinion is restrained and manipulated.

The recent Choi Soon-sil scandal shows that the media was never free

from political pressure; the political parties neither respect public

sentiments nor represent public preferences; Park Geun-hye was able to

rule the nation as an imperialist dictator.

All of these truths stem from the

fact that South Korea has yet to complete its democratization process.

In its process of democratization, South Korea has experienced a few

nation-wide democratic uprisings. The first democratic protest, which

occurred on April 19, 1960, is known as the “April Revolution.” Thou-

sands of college students and citizens took to the streets of Seoul, boldly

demanding the resignation of Rhee Syng-man, who was elected as the first

president through massive electoral fraud. The April uprising successfully

toppled the Rhee regime, but the Blue House was taken over by General

Park Chenghai, who seized the opportunity and political uncertainty to

lead a coup on May 16, 1961. Under Park Chung-hee, democratization

movements became more intense. A series of protests developed into

massive uprisings in the southern cities of Busan and Masan in October

1979, triggering internal conflicts among the coup leaders, which led to

the assassination of Park.

The brief period after the dictator’s assassination, often called the

“Seoul Spring,” gave people high hopes for a democracy. However, Major

General Chun Doo-hwan began maneuvering to gain control over the

Korean Central Intelligence Agency and declared even more draconian

forms of martial law. In May 1980, the country exploded into protest

against the possibility of a renewed military dictatorship. Gwangju, the

Page 9

capital of South Jeolla province, was the city that resisted until the end, but

hundreds of people were massacred during a military siege tacitly

approved by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose top priority for South

Korea was political stability.

Chun’s government, which gained power illegitimately, was never

a very popular one.

Throughout its tenure it was dogged by constant protests from

dissident groups. In June 1987, millions of citizens poured out onto the

streets, marking the final blow to Chun Doo-hwan’s dictatorial regime.

Many scholars have commented that the June Uprising of 1987 paved the

way for South Korea to emerge as Asia’s most vibrant democracy, but

unfortunately, due to a political split in the opposition camp, the South

Korean president-elect in 1987 was none other than Chun’s long-time

friend and accomplice to the Gwangju massacre, Roh Tae-woo. South

Korea would not have a true civilian president until 1993, and it was not

until 1998 that an opposition party won the presidential election.

As described above, for decades the South Korean public has

consistently protested against undemocratic governance and oppression,

yearning for the socio-political transformation of their homeland. The

recent candlelight demonstrations against the Park Geun-hye government

also need to be seen within a broader framework of public struggles

against nondemocratic forces. Yet, how could the protests be so incredibly

peaceful? I assume that civic consciousness matured under the progressive

governments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun from 1998 to 2007,

which did not attempt to control or repress dissenting voices, while the

Park government’s authority has been weakened to the point where it

dares not use force against the public.

At any rate, though direct elections were incorporated into the

presidential voting system with the Declaration for Democratization on

June 29, 1987, a direct vote by the people alone could not create a proper

democratic system.

A single round of voting with a first-past-the-post

presidential election made for many “wasted” votes. If there had been a

two-round system that prevented a less-popular candidate who did not

receive an absolute majority from winning, South Korea would have had

a different outcome than Roh Tae-woo who won with only 36.6% of the

votes in the presidential election of 1987.

Page 10

Similar to South Korea’s presidential elections, its legislative

elections also generate too many “wasted votes.” Unlike many other

countries that introduced party-list proportional representation for their

parliamentary elections in their transition to democracy, in 1988 South

Korea adopted a plurality voting system with single-member constituen-

cies combined with a bit of proportional representation. The plurality

system was not introduced based on a broad consensus between the major

political parties at the time, but rather unilaterally passed by the ruling

Democratic Justice Party, founded by Chun Doohwan. Mechanically, the

plurality rule imposes formidable entry-barriers on minor parties with new

ideas, consequently leading to a two-party system where diverse public

opinions and preferences are not effectively represented.

Though democratic leaders occupied the Blue House for a decade

from 1998 to 2007, the fundamentals of legislative elections remained

unchanged. Civil society organizations have continually demanded reform

of the electoral system so that new and minor parties can have a better

chance to get seats in the parliament, but the privileged successfully

resisted such reform that could lead to a loss of their power in the national

assembly. Worst of all, there is literally no ideological distance between

the two major political parties of South Korea. Choi Jang-jip, the author

of “Democracy after Democratization,” characterizes the South Korean

political party system as a “monopolistic conservative party system”

where people can hardly find an inspirational candidate whom they can

expect to actually bring about change in their country.

For the most part,

with little exaggeration, political parties, whether they identify as

progressive or conservative, are preoccupied with permanent campaigning

for the next presidential election. This is because they know that the

president has absolute power to steer the country as he or she wishes. In

fact, this effectively explains both Choi Soon-sil-gate and the sarcastic

term “Hell Chosun.”

South Korea’s Economy on Shaky Ground

The expansion of presidential powers has been a distinctive feature of

South Korean democracy. The South Korean president enjoys almost

absolute power over the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. One of

the main sources of presidential power is the authority to appoint or

Page 11

influence the appointment of as many as 10,000 senior officials in the

bureaucracy, military, and government-affiliated organizations. This

accumulation of power in the hands of the president was in fact gradual

and usually done under the demand or pretext of a national emergency.

The confrontation with North Korea has permitted a larger concentration

of authority in the presidency and has given presidents the opportunity to

exercise almost royal prerogatives. What began as emergency powers

were soon consolidated into the ultimate cultural and constitutional

authority inherent in the presidential office, which became the so-called

“imperial presidency.”

With volatile political parties, an ineffective national assembly and

weak civil society, South Korea has every condition for the president to

control the nation through authoritative power. Worst of all, when the

president is fascinated with and addicted to economic growth, South

Korean society faces formidable social problems. As any president,

regardless of which party he or she is from, believes that national eco-

nomic policy should be designed and operated based on economic

development and expansion, it has become South Korean government’s

unchanging goal to make the country an ideal location for conglomerates

to do business.

Park Chung-hee was the one who made chaebols become the

backbone of the South Korean economy. The Park regime offered them a

variety of incentives such as subsidized loans from state banks, low

interest rates, tax exemptions, import and export licenses, and myriads of

government contracts. In return, chaebols were expected to achieve higher

levels of exports and to surreptitiously provide kickbacks to the govern-

ment. Although this system helped the country reach double digit

economic growth rates, labor exploitation and human rights abuses

increased in the course of the country’s rapid industrialization. In addition,

by the late 1960s, the financial structures of many companies had already

become fragile due to their heavy debts. However, under the successive

Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo eras, the chaebol continued to expand

without taking any steps to reduce their leverage. As most of the new

capital formation was financed by major South Korean banks that were

under effective government control, the risks of debt financing rose.

In the early 1990s, with the recession of the global economy, South

Page 12

Korea’s economic balance rapidly deteriorated. By the end of 1996, South

Korea’s external debt had grown to over $150 billion, while usable gross

international reserves were no more than $30 billion. Needless to say, a

major portion of the foreign debt was borrowed by the chaebol. When the

Asian currency crisis first broke out in Thailand in 1997 and swept

through the Southeast Asian countries, South Korea could not avoid a

wave of financial crises. It was the shaky financial institutions that

triggered the crisis, rather than speculative attacks on the Korean won.

Poor financial regulation and supervision failed to deter financial institu-

tions’ reckless lending and investing, which eventually made the economy

increasingly vulnerable to a foreign exchange crisis. Inevitably, the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) became involved in Korea’s financial

crisis. The IMF’s conditions for financial assistance ranged from

macroeconomic policies to structural reforms, especially in the financial

sector and labor market. Under the IMF’s excessive austerity programs,

South Korea experienced an avalanche of corporate bankruptcies, high

interest rates, and a sharp decline in growth rates. Social instability was an

inevitable outcome. South Korea’s painful labor market reforms, con-

ducted at a time when adequate social safety nets had not yet been

developed, produced quiet desperation and a salient increase in suicide

deaths among people who suddenly became unemployed due to their

company downsizing and restructuring.

Without eradicating the root cause of the economic crisis – the

chaebol – both Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung hastily implemented

financial market liberalization and labor market reforms while paying little

attention to the possible incompatibility of neoliberal economic policies

and social welfare. President Roh Moo-hyun, who was regarded as

progressive in his approach, also continued to pursue his predecessor’s

neoliberal economic policies that further widened social gaps, while

putting patches on the social welfare system. Under the conservative

administrations of Park Geun-hye and her predecessor Lee Myung-bak

(2008-2013), polarization has worsened in all areas.

A Need for Transformation

Unfortunately, South Koreans have become victims of their country’s

economic success under the tenet of accelerating and sustaining economic

Page 13

growth, and more recently that of promoting globalization. A highly

competitive environment with little tolerance for failure has made people

become overly self-centered and lethargic at the same time. The sarcastic

term “Hell Chosun” frequently used among young people reflects the dire

social situation of South Korea, where ordinary people feel more deprived

than ever. The thousands of people gathering in Gwanghwamun Square

are expressing that they will no longer put up with the kind of society that

asks people to give their whole lives for the sake of the nation’s trade

surplus, even when fair distribution cannot be expected. Outsiders need to

understand that it is not just a protest against an incapable leader but an

all-out struggle against an undemocratic and inhumane system. The South

Korean protesters demand not only a different state leader but also a

different national community: a welfare state where they feel secure

raising their children. There is every reason to sincerely hope that South

Korea’s revolutionary peaceful candlelight protests will become a catalyst

to finally transform the system that gave birth to Park Geun-hye and Choi

Soon-sil, and lead to the development of a desirable state where people

can fully enjoy political rights, civil liberty, and economic justice.

Notes:

1. Cheong Wa Dae, the residence of the South Korean president, is commonly referred

to as the “Blue House” because the main building and its annexes are covered with

traditional Korean blue roof tiles.

2. Chaebols refer to a small number of conglomerates – for example, Samsung, LG, and

Hyundai, which are owned by the chairman’s family. They have dominated the South

Korean economic landscape, making up a large portion of South Korea’s GDP. For more

information on chaebols and their role in the South Korean economy, see Phil-sang Lee’s

“Economic Crisis and Chaebol Reform in Korea,” available at:

https://www8.gsb.

columbia.edu/apec/sites/apec/files/files/discussion/PSLee.PDF

3. Chosun is the name of a Korean dynasty that lasted for over 500 years from 1392 to

1910. Young people in South Korea sarcastically call their homeland “Hell Chosun,”

expressing their anxiety over a society where they can find no hope unless they were born

with a silver spoon in their mouth.

4. See Arthur Meier Schlesinger, The Imperial Presidency (Boston: Mariner Books,

2004). The South Korean presidential system has a great possibility to give birth to what

Schlesinger characterizes as an “imperial presidency” by giving enormous power and

privilege to a president while lacking checks and balances, and Park Geun-hye was a

typical example of someone who abused the system. See also the interview article “2017

Page 14

Presidential Dreams” by Kyunghyang newspaper (9 January 2017), available at

http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html? code=710100 &artid=201701091831257

5. For more information, see Tim Shorrock’s “Money Doesn’t Talk, It Swears,” available

at:

http://timshorrock.com/?page_ id= 21

6. For the historical background of the South Korean electoral system, see Aurel

Croissant’s “Electoral Politics in South Kore a,” availab le at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361008.pdf

7. Jang-jip Choi, Democracy after Democratization: The Korean Experience (Seoul:

Humanitas, 2012). For more details on the dark side of Korea’s economic success, see

The Miracle with a Dark Side (2003), published by the Institute for International

Economics.

the website is published under a Creative Commons License which can be seen at:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-NC/4.0/.

[Editor’s Note: During the mass candlelight movement of 2016-2017 in

South Korea, several articles appeared in the South Korean media

analyzing the demands of the protesters. The following article points to

some of these articles.]

Korean Candlelight Model for More

Democracy*

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

South Korea has reached a critical juncture. The National Assembly

voted to impeach the President, Park Geun-hye and then the impeachment

went to the Constitutional Court. There, eight of the eight judges

supported the impeachment for Park to be removed from the presidency

permanently.

The impeachment resulted from a corruption scandal which had

engulfed the administration of Park Geun-hye. There were allegations that

her administration was plagued by corruption over the past few years, and

by October, 2016 various news media were revealing evidence of that

Page 15

corruption.

Interviews published in the South Korean newspaper Hankyoreh

began to show how the Korean government practices were being directly

influenced or even decided by forces outside of the government.

Hankyoreh interviews described meetings with other people carried out by

Choi Soon-sil, a long time friend of President Park, discussing the

President’s upcoming schedule and national policy issues. This was

substantiated when a computer tablet was found by reporters connected

with the JTBC cable media. The tablet’s memory contained many files

that have been alleged to prove that President Park subordinated her

presidency to Choi Soon-sil, who had no official role in the South Korean

government. The allegation is that Park turned to Choi for advice and

decisions concerning government matters.

The involvement of Choi Soon-sil in government matters was linked

to her role in creating foundations and using the President’s name and

influence to raise funds from the chaebols, the big corporations dominat-

ing the South Korean economy. It is alleged that some chaebol executives

then expected and received favorable decisions in government matters

relating to their businesses.

Other examples of government corruption have emerged in areas like

culture and sports. There is evidence that government contracts were given

to those recommended by Choi Soon-sil or officials who had been

appointed based on her recommendation. The news of these activities

spread and the public came to understand what appeared to be serious

systemic corruption involving the head of the South Korean government.

By the end of October, large weekly public demonstrations began to

be held by South Korean citizens calling on President Park to resign. The

demonstrations grew in size so that by December, 2016, over one million

people of all ages and from many walks of life rallied in Seoul with almost

2 million people protesting nationwide. President Park made some

attempts at what she claimed to be public apologies, but the public was

dismayed by what appeared more as attempts at justifying her behavior.

By December 9, a vote was taken in the National Assembly to

impeach the President. The result was 234 to support the impeachment

resolution and 56 against. The number voting to impeach Park exceeded

the 200 votes needed for the impeachment resolution to pass. As required

Page 16

by the Constitution, the impeachment resolution was taken to the

Constitutional Court, which had up to 180 days to review the merits of the

resolution.

Commentary in the media by scholars, journalists and citizens seeks

to analyze what is happening in South Korea. The article “A Historic

Juncture” in the South Korean newspaper Joong Ang Ilbo by Political

Science Professor Jaung Hoon of Chung-An University proposed that

South Korea was at a critical crossroads.

Describing this juncture, he

wrote that this was “a decisive moment at which the god of history differ-

entiates the fraying established power from the new force of the future.”

He proposed that ending Park Geun-hye’s presidency and finding a

way to amend the constitution so no such corruption could be repeated

was important, but that this was not what he called “the ultimate issues.”

What the people truly want, he explained, is a new form of civic politics

and political platform that go beyond the representative democracy of the

century in order to allow continuous exchange and communication

between the representative system and the general will of the people.

Professor Hoon proposes the need to strengthen communication between

the political system and the people.

Several other articles in the Korean media express a similar urgency,

but they propose the need to change the political structures, not merely

make them more responsive. For example, the editorial “Impeachment

Means a New Dawn for South Korean Democracy” in the Korean

newspaper Hankyoreh proposed the need for changing the political frame-

work that allowed such corruption to take place.

The Hankyoreh editorial argues:

If representative democracy is

unable to adequately express the demands of direct democracy, there is no

reason for it to continue. Politics has been distorted by political interests

that reject the will of the people, and it’s time for that to stop. We hope

that the politicians will stop testing the protesters’ patience.

This Hankyoreh editorial notes, “This is an opportunity not merely to

remove the people who appropriated state resources for themselves but to

replace the obsolete systems, conditions and structures that made such

appropriation possible.” The impeachment motion is viewed as but “the

first step on the long journey toward completing the civic revolution in the

truest sense of that phrase.”

Page 17

The editorial “Candlelight Revolution Mandates Rebuilding of

Nation” in the newspaper The Korea Times, in a similar vein, explained

that what was happening in South Korea was a “candlelight revolution”

which mandates, “the rebuilding of the nation.”

The editorial reports that

people involved in the protests “commonly pledged to support the funda-

mental reformation of society and continuously participate in decision

making.”

The editorial explained that, “The incompetence of the political

parties encouraged people to participate directly.” It quoted as an example,

one demonstrator who said “We don’t have a clear plan yet, but we all

share in the belief that we need more action for changes.”

The article “Three Points of the Constitutional Court ‘Impeachment

Trial’,” in the Korean newspaper OhmyNews explained that what had

happened in South Korea is that citizens took the lead and led political

circles and the media. Although only 40 days earlier it was expected that

the impeachment vote would be difficult, this writer observed how public

anger skyrocketed in the Park Geun-hye-Choi Soon-sil Gate scandal,

endlessly revealing more, like the peeling of an onion. Citizens came out

in the square and declared “we are the sovereigns.” The article argues that

if it were not for these “sovereigns,” it would not have been possible to

pass the impeachment resolution in the National Assembly on December

9, 2016.

The author of this article argues that there is a need for citizens to

remain strong. If the amazing power of candles does not remain as

memories of winter, but continues, this author predicts, “Korea should

become a country of strong citizens…. The role of the parliamentary elite

is important, but I dream of a society…in which ordinary people can

discuss constitutional principles.” The article argues for the need for

reflection and the involvement of the ordinary people to determine the

vision for the constitutional change needed so as to lay the foundation for

change. The article proposes favoring the presidential candidate who

advocates many citizens discussing the constitutional principles to be

proposed, rather than prematurely formulated constitutional amendments.

Other articles in the media and online caution against allowing

politicians to quickly formulate and pass constitutional amendments that

they claim deal with the problems, but which have excluded citizens from

Page 18

the formulation process.

The editorial “To Go Beyond June of 1987” in the Korean newspaper

Kyunghyang Shinmun explains how such a process happened in 1987

excluding those who had been the protesters from being part of formu-

lating the mechanisms that would provide a continuing democratic process

for them. Instead, a small group of politicians formulated the constitu-

tional language to provide for direct election of the President, a process

that did not provide for democracy for the people.

Instead, the author

explained now there is the “need to introduce and expand direct democ-

racy and the participation of the citizens. What the National Assembly

should be doing is not to discuss constitutional amendments but to enact

a bill that will establish the constitutional procedures for citizen participa-

tion in (the process of) amending the constitution.”

The people protesting are concerned about the structural weakness of

the South Korean political system where there are such weak safe guards

against high level corruption. Therefore, there is a demand among the

protesters for a structural means for their ongoing participation in the

affairs of government.

People are expressing their recognition that the so called “democratic

institutions”have demonstrated their weakness, and that there is a need for

what they refer to as a 21

century politics. Among the Korean people,

there is a recognition of the need to create new forms of democratic

institutions which deal with the deficiencies of the current institutions and

provide for a form of ongoing citizen participation in government

processes and decision making.

South Korea has an important legacy that can help it to meet this

challenge. It is a country that is first in the world in the spread of the

Internet and the use of the Internet by people online. Many South Koreans

are netizens, those seeking to utilize the empowerment made possible by

the Net for a more democratic and participatory society. During the past

two decades, netizens in South Korea have explored various forms of

online participation so they have a rich experience to draw from toward

creating the forms and structures needed for the civic revolution they

realize is needed. Their mass participation in the candlelight activities to

expose the corruption and failures of the current government demonstrates

that they have been mastering the need for the civic participation of

Page 19

netizens and citizens in the affairs of the society. Hence they are not

looking for better leadership, but for the participation of the citizens

themselves as leadership. Citizens of South Korea are acting to change the

governmental model. They are not just looking for a next ‘great leader’ but

for a much enhanced participation of citizens in the determination and

functioning of their political system. Will what they envision be able to

impact the future political direction for South Korea?

Notes:

1. Jaung Hoon, “A Historic Juncture,” Joong Ang Ilbo, November 18, 2016, p. 31.

http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aid= 3026380

2. [Editorial] “Impeachment Means A New Dawn for South Korean Democracy,”

Hankyoreh, December 9, 2016.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_editorial/e_editorial/773972.html

3. Cho Jae-hyon, Choi Ha-young, “Candlelight Revolution Mandates Rebuilding of

Nation,” The Korea Times, December 12, 2016.

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_ newsi dx=219894

4. (agent89), “Three Points of the Constitutional Court ‘Impeachment Trial’,”

16:12:12 09:51, OhmyNews, (in Korean).

http://m.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Mobile/at_pg.aspx?CNTN _CD=A0002268821

See also Article 1 of the Republic of Korea (ROK) Constitution. “The sovereignty of

the Republic of Korea shall reside in the people, and all state authority shall emanate

from the people.”

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protr

av/@ilo_aids/documents/legaldocument/wcms_117333.pdf

5. Ha Seung-soo, “To Go Beyond June of 1987,” Kyunghyang Shinmun, December 12,

2016.

*This is an edited version of an article, “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea of Leadership or the

Candlelight Model for More Democracy?” that first appeared Dec. 12, 2016 on the

netizenblog at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/12/21/leadership-or-

candlelight-democracy/

Page 20

[Editor’s Note: The following is a slightly edited version of a talk give at

the re:publica 2017 conference in Berlin, Germany on May 9, 2017. It is

a work in progress.]

The Candlelight Demonstrations

in South Korea as a Laboratory

for Democracy

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Part I – Introduction

May 2017 marked the 20

anniversary of the print publication of the

book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet,

which I will refer to as the Netizens book. This coincided with a series of

candlelight demonstrations that took place in South Korea calling for and

resulting in the impeachment of the former President of South Korea, Park

Geun Hye, and her arrest on charges of corruption and bribery.

From October 29, 2016 to April 29, 2017 there were 23 candlelight

demonstrations. These demonstrations succeeded in strengthening, first the

National Assembly and then the Constitutional Court to rule in favor of

Park’s impeachment. These demonstrations also emboldened the

Prosecutors Office to call for the detention and then the arrest of Park and

of a number of other former government and corporate officials.

The significance of the candlelight demonstrations is that they were

made possible by the Internet and by the citizens and netizens of South

Korea, who are taking up what is a critical issue for our times. They are

exploring how in practice to deal with the lack of democracy experienced

by the people in South Korea. This is an all too common problem for

people around the world as well. If progress can be made tackling this

problem, it is important that this progress be shared and understood by

others who are also suffering under its yoke.

In my talk I want to focus on two particular aspects of networking

developments:

1) The vision that helped to inspire the creation and development of the

Page 21

Net.

2) The emergence and development of the Netizens.

The discussion of these two aspects of network development will help

to provide the context for the importance of these and earlier South

Korean candlelight demonstrations.

Part II – Background

In 1992, Michael Hauben, one of the co-authors of the Netizens book,

was a student at Columbia University. He was online as part of the

Columbia University connection at the time to the Internet. By 1992 the

Internet had been in the process of being built for 20 years, but it was only

then spreading and connecting up people around the world. Michael

posted a paper on what was at the time a network known as Usenet,

originally created for those using the Unix Operating System.

Michael’s paper described an article, titled “Liberty of the Press,”

written for the Supplement to the 1825 Encyclopedia Britannica by James

Mill.

Mill argued about the need for people to be able to keep watch over

their government officials. Mill maintained that “government will be

corrupt if the chance exists” and that “those in position to rule would

abuse their power.” In his paper Michael proposes that computer networks

give people a means of publicly evaluating and spreading information

about the activities of government officials.

Michael referred to the experience he was having on Usenet, as an

important example of how to provide for the open discussion about the

workings of government and government officials that Mill proposed as

critical for good government.

The article about James Mill and the need for computer networks for

citizens to provide oversight over government officials became the final

chapter in the Netizens book titled “The Computer as a Democratizer.”

A few months later Michael took a class in computer ethics. For that

course, he put together a post on several mailing lists and on Usenet titled,

“The Largest Machine: Where it came from and its importance to society.”

In it, Michael wrote: “I propose to write a paper concerning the

development of the ‘Net.’ I am interested in exploring the forces behind

its development and the fundamental change it represents over previous

Page 22

communications media…. I wish to come to some understanding of where

the net has come from, so as to be helpful in figuring out where it is

going.” (Netizens, p 36)

In a short time after his post appeared online, a number of e-mail

responses arrived in his e-mail account, welcoming his post and respond-

ing to it. The people who wrote him in general shared their online

experiences, and their great appreciation of the value they felt was now

possible because they were able to be online. Michael studied their

responses. Gathering them he put together a post which he titled

“Common Sense: The Net and Netizens.” He wrote: “Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of

the world thanks to the global connectivity that the Net makes possible…”

He observed, “We are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks

are being redesigned from the bottom up. A new, more democratic world

is becoming possible.”

Subsequently, in a talk Michael gave in Japan he clarified that his

view was that not all those online are netizens. Michael identifies those

public spirited users who contribute to the Net and the bigger world it is

part of, as the online users he refers to as netizens. He reserved the use of

the word netizens to describe such users.

The book Netizens grew out of the experience of this research Michael

was doing and the complementary research I began influenced by the

fascinating material Michael was gathering and continuing to write about.

In 1994 we put a draft of a book online. Then in 1997 a print edition of the

Netizens book was published in English and Japanese editions.

Part III – Pioneering Vision

In response to Michael’s question as to where the Net had come from,

online networking pioneers pointed to the work of JCR Licklider as the

scientist who inspired and successfully set the research direction that made

it possible to create the Internet.

In Chapter V of the Netizens book, Michael refers to the vision that

guided the origin and development of the Internet, Usenet and the other

associated … networks, and he asked “What is that vision?” The chapter

points to the community that grew up around the people who were linked

together by computer systems. Trained as a psychologist, Licklider

Page 23

observed what was happening to the people who were using the newly

created computer systems. He observed that communities formed as

people interacted and helped each other. A general phrase Licklider used

at the time was “intergalactic networks.” It was a phrase that captured the

grandeur of Licklider’s vision for the future network.

Another key aspect of Licklider’s vision was the need for the whole

population to be connected if the developing network would represent a

benefit to society.

Part IV – South Korea and Netizens

Over the years there have been many examples of researchers

referring to netizen developments in various parts of the world. But what

I have found is that probably the most advanced examples of both the

research and practice of netizens are in South Korea.

First, there is a proud tradition of protest and sacrifice on the part of

South Koreans to win the minimal democratic rights they have gained.

Secondly, South Korea is one of the most wired countries in the world

where a larger percentage of its population, compared with many other

countries, has access to high speed Internet connectivity.

My connection to South Korea began in February 2003 when I saw

a headline on the front page of the Financial Times newspaper that the

new President of South Korea had been elected by Netizens. For me, of

course, this was a surprising and important headline.

I began to try to learn what was happening in South Korea. Indeed

many netizens in South Korea had backed Roh Moo-Hyun who was a

candidate for the South Korean Presidency from outside the political

mainstream. Roh Moo-Hyun won the election in December 2002. That

event and subsequent events I learned about led me to understand that

already in 2003 netizens had become an important phenomenon in South

Korea.

I learned, too, that the word for netizen in the Korean language is

pronounced the same as the English word, though spoken with a Korean

pronunciation. I was also encouraged to see that our book was known in

South Korea.

One example is in an English language research paper. The reference

explains:

Page 24

[Michael] Hauben (1997) defined the term Netizen as the people

who actively contribute online towards the development of the

Internet.... In particular, Usenet news groups or Internet bulletin

boards are considered an ‘agora’ where the Netizens actively

discuss and debate upon various issues.... In this manner, a

variety of agenda are formed on the ‘agora’ and in their activity

there, a Netizen can act as a citizen who uses the Internet as a

way of participating in political society.

Part V – Mark Poster and the Need for Netizens

Over the years, several commentators have written about the

importance of the concept of netizens.

One example is the discussion of the potential impact of netizens and

the Internet on globalization by Mark Poster, a media theorist. Poster was

interested in the relationship of the citizen to government, and in the

empowering of the citizen to be able to affect the actions of one’s

government. With the coming of what he calls the age of globalization,

however, Poster wondered if the concept of “citizen” can continue to

signify democracy. He wondered if the concept is up to the task. “The

deepening of globalization processes strips the citizen of power,” he

argues. “As economic processes become globalized, the nation-state loses

its ability to protect its population....” In this situation, “the figure of the

citizen is placed in a defensive position.”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” he notices, the name often

given to the political subject constituted on the Net is “netizen.”

There is a need, however, to find instead of a defensive position, an

offensive one. “The netizen,” Poster proposes, “might be the formative

figure in a new kind of political relation, one that shares allegiance to the

nation with allegiance to the Net and to the planetary political spaces it

inaugurates.” Thus for Poster, the netizen may make possible the offensive

position needed to challenge globalization.

This new phenomena Poster concludes, “will likely change the

relation of forces around the globe. In such an eventuality, the figure of the

netizen might serve as a critical concept in the politics of democrati-

zation.”

One example that helps to demonstrate how Netizens can fulfill the

Page 25

role that Poster envisioned are the 2008 candlelight demonstrations in

South Korea. The following case study of the 2008 candlelight demonstra-

tions explores how netizens were able to challenge the harmful effects of

globalization.

Part VI – 2008 Candlelight Demonstrations

By 2008 the U.S. had pressured the OIE, an international animal

health regulatory body to change the evaluation criteria for beef to be

considered safe enough to import to a country like South Korea. In April

2008, the newly inaugurated South Korean President Lee Myung-bak met

with the U.S. President. On April 18 President Lee signed an agreement

to end the former restrictions on the import of U.S. beef into South Korea.

The new beef import agreement provided that beef of any cut, any age

and with bone in, could be imported into South Korea from the U.S. This

was a striking departure from the previous beef agreements which since

2003 had required U.S. imports to meet requirements designed to protect

the South Korean public against exposure to the human version of Mad

Cow Disease. Posts critiquing the new beef agreement appeared online at

Daum Agora, a South Korean networking site.

On April 29, a South Korean TV station aired a documentary

exposing the poor U.S. safety practices in inspecting U.S. beef for Mad

Cow Disease. Following the program there was increased online discus-

sion about the problem of importing U.S. beef, given the minimal U.S.

government inspection of this beef. In response to a lot of online discus-

sion about the beef deal, the first candlelight demonstration for May 2,

2008 was called by middle school girls and high school students using

their cell phones and a fan website among other online sites. When a large

turnout, estimated as at least 10,000 protesters appeared at the demonstra-

tion, many were surprised.

Then for more than 100 nights candlelight demonstrations were held in

South Korea protesting the Lee Myung-bak actions and asking for

regulations against the import of what much of the South Korean public

deemed potentially unhealthy beef imports from the U.S.

These demonstrations were nonviolent evening vigils with candles.

People of all ages and all walks of life took part, from students to families,

to older people. Though called to protest the U.S.-South Korean beef

Page 26

agreement, the underlying demand of the demonstrators was that the

program of South Korean President Lee and his conservative party not be

allowed to take South Korea back to the days of autocratic rule.

In contrast to the somber and militant demonstrations in South Korea

in the 1980s and 1990s, the 2008 candlelight vigils, instead, were treated

like a festival with people bringing their instruments and playing them,

dancing, singing, having heated discussions, and participating in new

institutions such as the free speech stage. Also some of the participants

would stay late into the night and through to the next morning.

Another new aspect was that protestors would come with their laptops

and digital cameras and send out reports on the Internet to other netizens

in South Korea and around the world as the demonstrations were in

progress.

One report by the international TV channel France 24 describes what

happened: “In South Korea a new form of democratic expression has

emerged via the Internet. Its followers call themselves Netizens and when

demonstrating against the government they carry their laptops to broadcast

the event live....”

The report explained that netizens, “first voiced their discontent in

cyberspace before taking to the streets. One man sitting on the floor in

front of his laptop is writing a live transcript of what is being said on the

stage for a website.”

“What I want to do is inform people through the Internet,” he said, to

“provide them with detailed information on the situation and tell them the

facts the government is hiding.”

People participated both online and in person at the demonstrations.

Among the participants were “members of a cooking club, a classical

music society, a fashion club, a U.S. major league baseball watching

club,” and other similar groups on the Internet. “Some of them joined the

protests with their flags, distributed snacks and water to fellow protesters

and started fund raising for paid advertisements in daily newspapers.” One

researcher who described these various participants and their activities

noted that such online clubs and groups had not previously engaged in

politics. But remarks made by some in the group led others to join the

online discussion and participate in trying to get what they considered to

be a bad government policy changed.

Page 27

Part VII

A theory and practice of a more participatory form of democracy was

being developed by netizens online and in the streets of South Korea. In

looking at the 2008 candlelight demonstrations, however, a particularly

salient example of the significance of the experience of Candlelight 2008

is a set of events that occurred during the early hours of June 10 to 11,

2008.

June 10, 2008 was going to be the largest demonstration in recent

history in South Korea. The police prepared for the demonstration by

erecting a barrier to prevent the demonstrators from marching on the

President’s compound. The police brought eight 40-ton shipping contain-

ers, filled them with sand and soldered them together to blockade the

President’s compound.

Netizens observing the building of this blockade named it

Myung-bak’s castle. An entry was created in the Korean Wikipedia for

“Myung-bak’s Castle” as a landmark of Seoul. Some people brought

styrofoam blocks to the demonstration. These blocks later became the

subject of a lengthy outdoor discussion as to whether to use them to build

a staircase to make it possible for protesters to go over the barricade.

Part VIII – The Outdoor Forum

On June 11, from midnight to 5:30 a.m. netizens and citizens held an

outdoor forum to determine whether or not demonstrators should try to

climb over the barrier to march to the President’s compound. Through the

process of a 5-1/2 hour outdoor discussion, with people around the world

watching online and with many commenting online as the discussion was

taking place, the demonstrators came to a widely supported decision to

climb to the top of the barrier to show they could go over it if they chose,

but that they had decided not to march on the Blue House.

This was an important demonstration of the fact that even those with

different views of what should be done were able to communicate with

each other to determine what course of action would be most in the public

interest. Several participants then created the styrofoam block structure

they needed, and some went up to the top of the structure, parading across

the top with their banners and flags, including a banner that indicated what

Page 28

they wanted was to communicate with the government.

The demonstrators who went up on the barrier installed a large banner

which read “Is this how MB communicates with his People?” Also the

banners of some of the major groups at the demonstration were brought up

on the barrier, with the online forum Agora Daum as one of the banners.

This image was in sharp contrast to the other side of the shipping

containers, the area around the Blue House. The Blue House, the home

and office of the head of the government, was surrounded by police, ready

to attack anyone who came into the area. The message there clearly was

that no communication between the citizens or netizens and the govern-

ment was desired by the government. Describing the event, one netizen

writes:

Through this demonstration, many netizens comment on the

significant meaning of this event to ask what is democracy, and what are

the rights of citizens. Steps that participants made in order to climb on the

container boxes showed what they wanted was not being against the

government in a riot, but being in mutual communications...with the

government.

Another explained:

Honestly, I assumed that people would try to find a way to climb over

the container boxes when they had been piled up during the day. But when

I learned that steps of styrofoam were built up after arguments and

discussion by participants, not by a few extreme elements, I was really

impressed. Even though we learn that problems should be solved by

dialogue in textbooks, we are not used to having discussions and are not

willing to have arguments.... The netizen continued: “I am impressed that

there was a nice result after peaceful dialogue. This is real democracy.”

One researcher, Min Kyung Bae poses the problem as the contrast

between “Analog Government, Digital Citizens.” He documents how the

South Korean government continues to follow old, outmoded ways from

pre-digital days. While the netizens, the digital citizens are acting in line

with the new capabilities and advances of the times. Min argues that, “The

gap between Lee’s 1980’s style analog government and the digital citizens

of 2008 is huge.” He gives as one example that the “Lee administration

was more interested in knowing who paid for the candles than in

understanding why people were holding them.” Min explains that when

Page 29

Lee Myungbak closed off the Plaza to the public, the netizens took on to

create an online public square and from that online commons to move the

public back onto the offline public square.

Min ends his article with the call, “Analog politicians must realize

that the Internet offers an opportunity for a breakthrough to improve

Korea’s stagnant political culture. The candles lighting up Gwanghwamun

Plaza are carrying the demand that representative democracy evolve into

a new form suitable to the Internet age.”

[Editor’s Note: The following article is a 2017 revision of a presentation

made on May 1, 2012 at a small celebration in honor of the 15

Anniver-

sary of the publication of the print edition of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.]

Considerations on the Significance of

the Net and the Netizens

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Abstract:

The book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet celebrates in 2017 the 20

anniversary of its publication in

English and Japanese in 1997. The book documents how along with the

development of the Internet came the emergence of a new form of citizen

– the netizen. In his pioneering online research in the early 1990s Michael

Hauben gathered data and did analysis demonstrating that not only the

Internet but also the netizen would have an important impact on society.

This article explores Hauben’s research recognizing that netizens are a

new social force. The article also looks at other contributions which help

to provide a conceptual framework to understand this new social force.

Media theorist Mark Poster’s work about netizens is discussed, as is Karl

Deutsch’s theoretical understanding of the role of communication in

Page 30

creating a new model for good government. But it is the candlelight

revolution by citizens and netizens in 2016-2017 in South Korea which

demonstrates in practice the importance of the netizen forging a new

governance model for participatory democracy.

Introduction

With the introduction of the Internet, the question has been raised as

to what its impact will be on society. One significant result of the impact

already is the emergence of the netizen. Michael Hauben’s work in the

1990s recognized the significant impact not only of the development of the

Internet but also of the role of the netizen in forging new social and

political forms and processes.

While the role of netizens in working for social change has been

documented around the world, the role of netizens in working for social

and political change has been an especially important aspect of South

Korean experience for nearly the past two decades. Most recently,

however, widespread political and economic corruption at the highest

levels of the South Korean society has led citizens and netizens to take

part in peaceful but massive candlelight demonstrations advocating the

need for fundamental change in the political and economic structures of

South Korean society. The question has been raised whether there are

models for such change. In such an environment there is a need to

consider the importance of the Internet and of the netizen in helping to

forge the new forms for grassroots participation in the governing

structures of society. At such a time it seems appropriate to consider the

conceptual framework for the role of the netizen in contributing to a new

governing model for society.

These developments in South Korea come at a time when the book

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet celebrates

the 20

Anniversary since its publication in 1997, making a review of the

significant contribution of the book particularly relevant to the events of

our time.

Looking Back

Twenty years ago in May 1997, the print edition of Netizens: On the

Page 31

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet was published in English.

Later that year, in October, a Japanese translation of the book was

published. In 2017, we are celebrating the occasion of the 20

Anniversary

of these publications.

In honor of this occasion I want to both look back and forward toward

trying to assess the significance of the book and of Michael Hauben’s

discovery of the emergence of the netizen. I want to begin to consider

what has happened in these 20 years toward trying to understand the

nature of this advance and the developments the advance makes possible.

By the early 1990s, Hauben recognized that the Internet was a

significant new development and that it would have an impact on our

world. He was curious about what that impact would be and what could

help it to be a beneficial impact. He had raised a series of questions about

the online experience. He received responses to these questions from a

number of people. Reading and analyzing the responses he explained:

There are people online who actively contribute to the develop-

ment of the Net. These people understand the value of collective

work and the communal aspects of public communications.

These are the people who discuss and debate topics in a construc-

tive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help to

newcomers, who maintain FAQ files and other public informa-

tion repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These

are the people who discuss the nature and role of this new

communications medium. These are the people who as citizens

of the Net I realized were Netizens.

The book was compiled from a series of articles written by Hauben

and his co-author Ronda Hauben which were posted on the Net as they

were written and which sometimes led to substantial comments and

discussion.

The most important article in the book was Hauben’s article, “The Net

and Netizens: The Impact the Net Has on People’s Lives.” Hauben opened

the article with the prophetic words, which appeared online first in 1993:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen) and

you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global connectivity that the

Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your compatriot. You

physically live in one country but you are in contact with much of the

Page 32

world via the global computer network. Virtually, you live next door to

every other single Netizen in the world. Geographical separation is

replaced by existence in the same virtual space.

Hauben goes on to explain that what he is predicting is not yet the

reality. In fact, many people around the world were just becoming

connected to the Internet during the period in which these words were

written and posted on various different networks that existed at the time.

But now twenty years after the publication of the print edition of

Netizens, this description is very much the reality for our time and for

many it is hard to remember or understand the world without the Net.

Similarly, in his articles that are collected in the Netizens book,

Hauben looked at the pioneering vision that gave birth to the Internet. He

looked at the role of computer science in the building of the earlier

network called the ARPANET, at the potential impact that the Net and

Netizen would have on politics, on journalism, and on the revolution in

ideas that the Net and Netizen would bring about, comparing this to the

advance brought about by the printing press. The last chapter of the book

is an article Hauben wrote early on about the need for a watchdog function

over government in order to make democracy possible.

By the time the book was published in a print edition, it had been

freely available online for three years. This was a period when the U.S.

government was determined to change the nature of the Net from the

public and scientific infrastructure that had been built with public and

educational funding around the world to a commercially driven entity.

While there were people online at the time promoting the privatization and

commercialization of the Internet, the concept of netizen was embraced by

others, many of whom supported the public and collaborative nature of the

Internet and who wanted this aspect to grow and flourish.

The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out of a research project that

Hauben had done for a class at Columbia University in computer ethics.

Hauben was interested in the impact of the Net and so he formulated

several questions and sent them out online. This was a pioneering project

at the time and the results he got back helped to establish the fact that

already in 1993 the Net was having a profound impact on the lives of a

number of people.

Hauben put together the results of his research in the article “The Net

Page 33

and Netizens” and posted it online. This helped the concept of netizen to

spread and to be embraced around the world. The netizen, it is important

to clarify, was not intended to describe every net user. Rather netizen was

the conceptualization of those on the Net who took up to support the

public and collaborative nature of the Net and to help it to grow and

flourish. Netizens at the time often had the hope that their efforts online

would be helpful toward creating a better world.

Hauben described this experience in a speech he gave at a conference

in Japan. Subsequently in 1997, his description became the Preface to the

Netizens book, Hauben explained:

In conducting research five years ago online to determine

people’s uses of the global computer communications network,

I became aware that there was a new social institution, an

electronic commons, developing. It was exciting to explore this

new social institution. Others online shared this excitement. I

discovered from those who wrote me that the people I was

writing about were citizens of the Net or Netizens.

Hauben’s work which is included in the book and the subsequent

work he did recognized the advance made possible by the Internet and the

emergence of the Netizen.

The book is not only about what is wrong with the old politics, or

media, but more importantly, the implications for the emergence of new

developments, of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of what

Hauben called the “poor man’s version of the mass media.” He focused on

what was new or emerging and recognized the promise for the future

represented by what was only at the time in an early stage of development.

For example, Hauben recognized that the collaborative contributions

for a new media would far exceed what the old media had achieved. “As

people continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion forums,” he

wrote, “the collective population will contribute back to the human

community this new form of news.”

In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s work and of the publica-

tion of the book, both in its online form and in the print edition, I want to

look at some of the implications of what has been written since about

netizens.

Page 34

Mark Poster on the Implications of the Concept of Netizen

One interesting example is in a book on the impact of the Internet and

globalization by Mark Poster, a media theorist. The book’s title is

Information Please. The book was published in 2006. While Poster does

not make any explicit reference to the book Netizens he finds the concept

of the netizen that he has seen used online to be an important one. He

offers some theoretical discussion on the use of the “netizen” concept.

Referring to the concept of citizen, Poster is interested in the

relationship of the citizen to government, and in the empowering of the

citizen to be able to affect the actions of one’s government. He considers

the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen as a monument from

the French Revolution of 1789. He explains that the idea of the Rights of

Man was one effort to empower people to deal with governments. But this

was not adequate, even though he recognizes the concept of the rights of

the citizen was an important democratic milestone.

“Human rights and citizenship,” he writes, “are tied together and

reinforce each other in the battle against the ruling classes.”

He proposes

that “these rights are ensured by their inscription in constitutions that

found governments and they persist in their association with those

governments as the ground of political authority.”

But with the coming of what he calls the age of globalization, Poster

wonders if the concept “citizen” can continue to signify democracy. He

wonders if the concept is up to the task.

“The conditions of globalization and networked media,” he writes,

“present a new register in which the human is recast and along with it the

citizen.”

“The deepening of globalization processes strips the citizen of

power,” he writes. “As economic processes become globalized, the nation-

state loses its ability to protect its population. The citizen thereby loses her

ability to elect leaders who effectively pursue her interests.”

In this

situation, “the figure of the citizen is placed in a defensive position.”

succeed in the struggle against globalization he recognizes that there is a

need to find instead of a defensive position, an offensive one.

Also he is interested in the media and its role in this new paradigm.

“We need to examine the role of the media in globalizing practices that

construct new subjects,” Poster writes: “We need especially to examine

those media that cross national boundaries and to inquire if they form or

Page 35

may form the basis for a new set of political relations.”

In this context, for the new media, “the important questions, rather,

are these:” he proposes, “Can the new media promote the construction of

new political forms not tied to historical, territorial powers? What are the

characteristics of new media that promote new political relations and new

political subjects? How can these be furthered or enhanced by political

action?”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” Poster notices, the name

often given to the political subject constituted on the Net is “netizen.”

The observations that Poster makes of how the concept of “netizen”

is used online represents a recognition of the significant role for the

netizen in the future development of the body politic. “The netizen,”

Poster writes, “might be the formative figure in a new kind of political

relation, one that shares allegiance to the nation with allegiance to the Net

and to the planetary political spaces it inaugurates.”

This new phenom-

ena, Poster concludes, “will likely change the relation of forces around the

globe. In such an eventuality, the figure of the netizen might serve as a

critical concept in the politics of democratization.”

The Era of the Netizen

Poster characterizes the current times as the age of globalization. I

want to offer a different view, the view that we are in an era demarcated

by the creation of the Internet and the emergence of the netizen. Therefore,

a more accurate characterization of this period is as the “Era of the

Netizen.”

The years since the publication of the book Netizens have been

marked by many interesting developments that have been made possible

by the growth and development of the Internet and the spread of netizens

around the world. I will refer to a few examples to give a flavor of the kind

of developments I am referring to.

An article by Vinay Kamat in the Reader’s Opinion section of the

Times of India referred to something I had written. Quoting my article

“The Rise of Netizen Democracy,” the Times of India article said, “Not

only is the Internet a laboratory for democracy, but the scale of participa-

tion and contribution is unprecedented. Online discussion makes it

possible for netizens to become active individuals and group actors in

Page 36

social and public affairs. The Internet makes it possible for netizens to

speak out independently of institutions or officials.”

Kamat points to the growing number of netizens in China and India

and the large proportion of the population in South Korea who are

connected to the Internet. “Will it evolve into a 5

estate?” Kamat asks,

contrasting netizens’ discussion online with the power of the 4

estate, i.e.

the mainstream media.

“Will social and political discussion in social media grow into

deliberation?” asks Kamat. “Will opinions expressed be merely ‘rabble

rousing’ or will they be ‘reflective’ instead of ‘impulsive’?”

One must recognize, Kamat explains, the new situation online and the

fact that it is important to understand the nature of this new media and not

merely look at it through the lens of the old media. What is the nature of

this new media and how does it differ from the old? This is an important

area for further research and discussion.

Looking for a Model

When visiting South Korea in 2008, I was asked by a colleague if

there is a model for democracy that could be helpful for South Korea – a

model implemented in some country, perhaps in Scandinavia. Thinking

about the question I realized it was more complex than it seemed on the

surface.

I realized that one cannot just take a model from the period before the

Internet, from before the emergence of the netizen. It is instead necessary

that models for a more democratic society or nation, in our times, be

models that include netizen participation in the society. Both South Korea

and China are places where the role not only of citizens but also of

netizens is important in building more democratic structures for the

society. South Korea appears to be the most advanced in grassroots efforts

to create examples of netizen forms for a more participatory government

decision making process.

But China is also a place where there are

significant developments because of the Internet and netizens.

In China there have been a large number of issues that netizens have

taken up online which have then had an impact on the mainstream media

and where the online discussion has helped to bring about a change in

government policy.

Page 37

In looking for other models to learn from, however, I also realized

that there is another relevant area of development. This is the actual

process of building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to consider when

seeking to understand the nature and particularity of the evolving new

models for development and participation represented in the Era of the

Netizen.

In particular, I want to point to a paper by the research scientist who

many computer and networking pioneers credit with providing the vision

to inspire the scientific work to create the Internet. This scientist is J C R

Licklider, an experimental psychologist who was particularly interested

in the processes of the brain and in communication research.

In a paper Licklider wrote with another psychologist, Robert Taylor,

in 1968 a vision was set out to guide the development of the Internet. The

title of the paper was “The Computer as a Communication Device.”

The

paper proposed that essential to the processes of communication is the

creation and sharing of models. That the human mind is adept at creating

models, but that the models created in a single mind are not helpful in

themselves. Instead it is critical that models be shared and a process of

cooperative modeling be developed in order to be able to create something

that many people will respect.

Nerves of Government

In his article comparing the impact of the Net with the important

impact the printing press had on society, Hauben wrote, “The Net has

opened a channel for talking to the whole world to an even wider set of

people than did printed books.”

I want to focus a bit on the significance

of this characteristic, on the notion that the Net has opened a communica-

tion channel available to a wide set of people.

In order to have a conceptual framework to understand the importance

of this characteristic, I recommend the 1966 book by Karl Deutsch, Nerves

of Government. In the preface to this book, Deutsch writes:

This book suggests that it might be preferable to look upon

government somewhat less as a problem of power and somewhat

more as a problem of steering; and it tries to show that steering

is decisively a matter of communication.

To look at the question of government not as a problem of power, but

Page 38

as one of steering, of communication, I want to propose is a fundamental

paradigm shift.

What is the difference?

Power has to do with the ability to exert force on something so as to

affect its direction and action. Steering and communication, however, are

related to the process of the transmission of a signal through a channel.

The communication process is one related to whether a signal is transmit-

ted in a manner that distorts the signal or whether it is possible to transmit

the signal accurately. The communication process and the steering that it

makes possible through feedback mechanisms are an underlying frame-

work to consider in seeking to understand what Deutsch calls the “Nerves

of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked at as a self-steering

communication system of a certain kind and the messages that are used to

steer it are transmitted via certain channels.

Some of the important challenges of our times relate to the exposure

of the distortions of the information being spread. For example, the

misrepresentations by the mainstream media about what happened in

Libya in 2011 or what has been happening in Syria since 2011.

The

creation and dissemination of channels of communication that make

possible “the essential two-way flow of information” are essential for the

functioning of an autonomous learning organization, which is the form

Deutsch proposes for a well functioning system.

To look at this phenomenon in a more practical way, I offer some

considerations raised in a speech given to honor a Philippine librarian, a

speech given by Zosio Lee. Lee refers to the kind of information that is

transmitted as essential to the well being of a society. In considering the

impact of netizens and the form of information that is being transmitted,

Lee asks the question, “How do we detect if we are being manipulated or

deceived?”

The importance of this question, he explains, is that, “We would not

have survived for so long if all the information we needed to make valid

judgments were all false or unreliable.” Also, he proposes that “infor-

mation has to be processed and discussed for it to acquire full meaning and

significance.”

Lee writes, “When information is free, available and

Page 39

truthful, we are better able to make appropriate judgments, including

whether existing governments fulfill their mandate to govern for the

benefit of the people.”

In his article “The Computer as a Democratizer,” Hauben similarly

explores the need for accurate information about how government is

functioning. He writes, “Without information being available to them, the

people may elect candidates as bad as or worse than the incumbents.

Therefore, there is a need to prevent government from censoring the

information available to people.”

Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate information as to how

their representatives are fulfilling their role. Once these representatives

have abused their power, the principles established by [Thomas Paine] and

[James] Mill require that the public have the ability to replace the

abusers.”

Channels of accurate communication are critical in order to share the

information needed to determine the nature of one’s government.

Conclusion

The candlelight revolution is still in process in South Korea. It is

demonstrating in practice that we are in a period when the old forms of

government are outmoded. The paper by Licklider and Taylor proposes

that the computer is a splendid facilitator for cooperative modeling. It is

such a process of cooperative modeling that offers the potential for

creating not only new technical and institutional forms, but also new

political forms. Such new political forms are more likely to provide for the

democratic processes that are needed for the 21

century. Hence it is the

efforts of citizens and netizens who are involved in collaborative modeling

to create the more participatory forms and structures as is happening

during the candlelight processes being explored in South Korea that

provide for the development of a more equitable and democratic society.

Notes:

1. Hauben, M., R. Hauben. (1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and

the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in

an earlier draft version,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. Retrieved on Jan. 18, 2017.

Page 40

2. IBID., p. ix.

3. IBID., p. 233.

4. Poster, M., (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University Press, p.68.

5. IBID.

6. IBID., p. 70.

7. IBID., p. 71.

8. IBID.

9. IBID., p. 77.

10. IBID., p. 78.

11. IBID.

12. IBID., p. 83.

13. Kamat, V. (2011, December 16). “We are looking at the Fifth Estate.” Reader’s

Opinion, Times of India, p. 2.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/

ampnbspWe-arelooking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms. Retrieved on Jan.

10, 2017. The quote is taken from Hauben, R. “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case

Study of Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South Korea.”

http://www.columbia.edu/

~rh120/ other/misc/korean-democracy.txt, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

14. In South Korea there are many interesting examples of new organizational forms or

events created by netizens. For example, Nosamo combined the model of an online fan

club and off line gathering of supporters who worked to get Roh Moo-hyun elected as

President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews, an online newspaper, helped to make

the election of Roh Moo-hyun possible. Science mailing lists and discussion networks

contributed to by netizens helped to expose the fraudulent scientific work of a leading

South Korean scientist. And in 2008 there were 106 days of candlelight demonstrations

contributed to by people online and off to protest the South Korean government’s

adoption of a weakened set of regulations about the import of poorly inspected U.S. beef

into South Korea. The debate on June 10-11, 2008 over the form the demonstration

should take involved both online and offline discussion and demonstrated the generative

nature of serious communication. See for example, Hauben, R. “On Grassroots

Journalism and Participatory Democracy.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

/other/netizens_draft.pdf. Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

15. Some examples include the Anti-CNN website that was set up to counter the

inaccurate press reports in the western media about the 2008 riot in Tibet. The murder

case of a Chinese waitress who killed a Communist Party official in self defense. The case

of the Chongqing Nail House and the online discussion about the issues involved. See for

example, Hauben, R. (2010, February 14). “China in the Era of the Netizen.”

http://blogs.

taz.de/netizenblog/2010/02/14/china_in_the_era_of_the_ netizen/. Retrieved on Jan. 10,

2017.

16. IBID., Netizens.

17. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” (1968, April) Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, 21-41. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.

18. The Licklider and Taylor paper also points out that the sharing of models is essential

to facilitate communication. If two people have different models and do not find a way

Page 41

to share them, there will be no communication between them. IBID., 21-30. IBID.,

Netizens, p. 299

19. IBID., Netizens, p. 299

20. Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves19. Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of Government. New York:

The Free Press, p. xxvii.

21. See for example, Hauben, R. (2012, Winter). “Libya, the UN and Netizen Journal-

ism,” The Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21, No. 1,

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

ACn21-1.pdf. Retrieved Jan. 10, 2017 and Hauben, J. (2007). “On the 15

Anniversary

of Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.” http://www.columbia.edu/

~hauben/Book_Anniversary/presentat ion_2.doc. Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

22. Lee, Z. (2011). “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” JCL 31, p. 105.

23. IBID., p. 106.

24. IBID., p. 108.

25. IBID., Netizens, p. 316.

26. IBID., Netizens, p. 317.

27. Hauben explains: “Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man, describes a fundamental

principle of democracy.” Paine writes, “that the right of altering the government was a

national right, and not a right of the government’.” (Netizens, Chapter 18, p.

316)

28. Hauben, R. (2016, December 21). “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea of Leadership or the

Candlelight Model for More Democracy?” taz.de. http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/

12/21/leadership-orcandlelight-democracy/. Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2017.

Bibliography

Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of Government. New York: The Free Press, New York.

Hauben, M & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press. Online edition:

http://www.

columbia.edu/~rh120, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Hauben, R. (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of Netizens’ Impact

on Democracy in South Korea.” Unpublished paper. Retrieved from:

http://www.

columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/Rise_of_Netizen_ Democracy.pdf, Retrieved on

Jan. 11, 2017.

Komat, V. (2011, December 16, p. 2). Reader’s Opinion: “We’re Looking at the Fifth

Estate,” Times of India. Retrieved from:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/

opinion/edit-page/We-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/opinions/11133662.cms.

Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Lee, Z. E. (2011) “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” Journal of Philippine

Librarianship, 31, 101-109.

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article/

viewFile/ 2779/2597. Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Licklider, JCR, & Taylor, R. “The Computer as a Communication Device” (1968, April)

Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, 21-41. Retrieved Jan. 21,

2017.

Page 42

Poster, M. (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University Press.

[Editor’s Note: This article written in 2005 can be seen online at:

h t t p : / / w w w . c o l u m b i a . e d u / ~ h a u b e n / r o n d a 2 0 1 4 /

Rise_of_Netizen_Democracy.pdf]

The Rise of Netizen Democracy:

A Case Study of Netizens’ Impact on

Democracy in South Korea

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

The history of democracy also shows that democracy is a moving

target, not a static structure.

John Markoff

What does it mean to be politically engaged today? And what

does it mean to be a citizen? The transformation of how we

engage and act in society challenges how we perceive the

concepts of civic engagement and citizenship, their content and

expression. The introduction of new information technologies,

most notably in the form of internet, has in turn reinvigorated

these discussions.

Ylva Johansson

Someone may construe that in South Korea politics the major

source of power moved from ‘the muzzle of a gun (army)’ to ‘that

of the emotion (TV)’ and then to ‘that of logic (Internet)’ in a

short time.

Yun Young-Min

Page 43

Abstract

South Korean netizens are exploring the potential of the internet

to make an extension of democracy a reality. The cheering during

the World Cup games in Korea in June 2002 organized by the

Red Devils online fan club, then the protest against the deaths of

two Korean school girls caused by U.S. soldiers were the prelude

to the candidacy and election of Roh Moo-hyun, the first head of

state whose election can be tracked directly to the activity of the

netizens.

This is a case study of the South Korean netizen democracy. This

case study is intended as a contribution to a needed broader

project to explore the impact netizens are having on extending

democratic processes today.

I – Preface

In the early 1990s, a little more than two hundred years after the

French Revolution, a new form of citizenship emerged. This is a citizen-

ship not tied to a nation state or nation, but a citizenship that embodied the

ability to directly participate in the decisions that govern one’s society.

This citizenship emerged on the internet and was given the name

‘netizenship.’ The individuals who practice this form of citizenship refer

to themselves as ‘netizens.’

In the early 1990s, Michael Hauben, recognized the emergence and

spread of this new identity. In the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet, he describes how he came to recognize

that not only was there a new technical development, the internet, but also,

there was a new identity being embraced by many of those online. Hauben

writes:

The story of Netizens is an important one. In conducting research five

years ago (in 1992-1993-ed) online to determine people’s uses of the

global computer communications network, I became aware that there was

a new social institution, an electronic commons developing.

It was exciting to explore this new social institution. Others online

shared this excitement…. There are people online who actively contribute

toward the development of the Net. These people understand the value of

Page 44

collective work and the communal aspects of public communications.

These are the people who discuss and debate topics in a constructive man-

ner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help to new-comers, who

maintain FAQ files and other public information repositories, who

maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people who discuss the nature

and role of this new communications medium. These are the people who

as citizens of the Net, I realized were Netizens.… [T]hey are the 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…. The

word citizen suggests a geographic or national definition of social

membership. The word Netizen reflects the new non-geographically based

social membership. So I contracted net.citizen to Netizen.

Just as many different meanings have developed for ‘citizen,’ so

‘netizen’ has come to have several meanings. The early concept of

‘netizen’ is ‘one who participates in the affairs of governing and making

decisions about the internet and about how the internet can impact offline

society.’ A further development of this concept is ‘one who is empowered

by the net to have an impact on politics, journalism, culture and other

aspects of society.’

This article will explore this new socio-politi-

cal-cultural identity, the identity of the netizen in the context of recent

developments in South Korea.

While there is a large body of literature about the internet and its

impact on society, there has been considerably less attention paid to those

who are empowered by the internet, to the netizens, who are able to

assume a new role in society, and to embody a new identity. This article

will explore how the netizens of South Korea are helping to shape the

democratic practices that extend what we understand as democracy and

citizenship. Their experience provides an important body of practice to

consider when trying to understand what will be the future forms of

political participation.

II – Introduction

In his article “Where and When was Democracy Invented?,” the

sociologist John Markoff raises the question of the practice of democracy

and more particularly of the times and places where innovations in

democracy are pioneered.

Page 45

Markoff writes that a dictionary in 1690 defined democracy as a

“form of government in which the people have all authority.” (p. 661) Not

satisfied with such a general definition, Markoff wants to have a more

concrete definition or conception of democracy. He wants to investigate

the practices that extend democracy. He proposes looking for models or

practices that will help to define democracy in the future. Such models or

practices, he cautions, may be different from what we currently recognize

as democratic processes. “We need to consider,” he writes, “the possibility

that somewhere there maybe still further innovations in what democracy

is, innovations that will redefine it for the historians of the future.” (p.

689)

Markoff suggests that researchers who want to understand the means

of extending democracy in the future not limit themselves to the “current

centers of world wealth and power.” (p. 663) Similarly, he proposes that

the poorest areas of the world will not be the most fruitful for researchers

looking for innovations in democracy.

Considering Markoff’s guidelines, South Korea fits very appropriately

with regard to the size and environment likely to innovate democratic

practices. Events in South Korea confirm that indeed there are pioneering

practices that can give researchers a glimpse into how democracy can be

extended in a practical fashion.

III – The South Korean Netizens Movement

Various factors have contributed to democratic developments in South

Korea. For example, the activities of Korean non governmental organiza-

tions (NGOs) have played an important role. Similarly, the student

movements at least since1980 have served to maintain a set of social goals

in the generations that have grown up with these experiences. Government

support for the spread and use of computers and the internet by the South

Korean population has also played a role.

For the purposes of this article, however, I want to focus on the

practice of the Korean netizen. Along with the pioneering of computer

networking in South Korea (1980s) and internet technology (1990s), there

was the effort to maintain internet development for public purposes. This

is different from how in the 1990s, for example, the U.S. government gave

commercial and private interests free reign in their desires to direct

Page 46

internet development.

A – South Korean Networking as a Social Function

This case study begins in 1995.

In 1995, the U.S. government privatized the U.S. portions of the

internet backbone. The goal of the U.S. government was to promote

private and commercial use. At the same time the concept of netizen was

spreading around the U.S. and the international networking community,

partially in opposition to the trend of privatization and commercialization.

In South Korea, however, there was a commitment to “prevent

commercial colonization” of the South Korean internet. The effort was to

promote the use of the internet for grassroots political and social purposes,

as a means of democratizing Korea. In a paper presented in 1996, “The

Grassroots Online Movement and Changes in Korean Civil Society,”

Myung Koo Kang,

documents the netizen activity in South Korea to

“intervene into the telecommunication policy of the government which is

pushing toward privatization, and to build an agenda for non-market use

of the electronic communications technology.”

Kang describes the formation of the Solidarity of Progressive

Network Group (SPNG) in 1995. He wrote, “It is now estimated that the

South Korean online community is populated by as many as 1.5 million

users.” (p. 117) In the early1990s, commercial networks like Chollian,

Hitel, and Nowururi were main providers of internet access in South

Korea. Those interested in developing the democratic potential of the

internet were active in these networks in newsgroups devoted to specific

topics or on internet mailing lists. Online communities developed and the

experience was one that trained a generation in participatory online

activity. Describing the experience of being online in one of these

communities in the early1990s, a netizen writing on Usenet explains:

There were Hitel, Chollian, Nownuri, three major text based

online services in Korea. I think they boomed in early 90's and

withered drastically as the Internet explosion occurred in mid and

late 90's.

They provided the bbs, file up/ download, chatting and commu-

nity services.

Page 47

Their community services were very strong. I also joined some

such groups and learned a lot. Community members formed a

kind of connection through casual meeting, online chatting, study

groups and etc. The now influential Red Devils...was at first

started as one of such communities. It introduced new forms of

encounter among the people with the same interest.

They also had some discussion space, similar to this news group

and people expressed their ideas....

B – How the Net Spread

When the Asian economic crisis hit South Korea in 1997, the Korean

government met the crisis partially with a commitment to develop the

infrastructure for high speed access. It gave support for the creation of

businesses to provide internet access and to provide training to use

computers and the internet. Describing the program of the South Korean

government, Kim, Moon and Yang write:

“It invested more than 0.25%

of the GDP to build a high-speed backbone and is also providing more

than 0.2% of GDP in soft loans to operators from 1999 to 2005.”

Along with the financial and business investment, the government

supported training programs in internet literacy. One such program was

called the “Ten Million People Internet Education” project to provide

computer and internet skills to 10 million people by 2002. Unemployed

South Korean housewives were particularly targeted and reports indicate

that one million were provided with courses as part of the 4.1 million

people who participated in government initiated programs. Primary and

secondary schools were also provided with high speed internet access.

Internet cafes with highspeed access called PC-bangs spread widely,

offering another form of cheap internet access.

C – Netizen Events

Several developments in the first few years of the 21

Century

demonstrate the impact the spread of the internet has had on South Korean

society. A key result of widespread access to the internet in South Korea

has been the emergence of the netizen and of examples of netizen

democracy.

Page 48

1) The Red Devils and World Cup Cheering

The Red Devils is a fan club for the South Korean national soccer

team. It developed as an online community. The club became the main

soccer cheering squad. Its original name had been “Great Hankuk

Supporters Club” when it was created in 1997. It was renamed “Red

Devils” after an online email process “collecting public views through

e-mail bulletins.”

The group utilized the internet for the 2002 World Cup

cheering. Describing how the internet was utilized, Yong-Cho Ha and

Sangbae Kim write:

[T]he Web was a thrilling channel for many soccer fans across

the country to satisfy their craving for information on the Cup.

The 2002 World Cup provided Koreans with an opportunity to

facilitate the dynamic exchange of information on the Web. In

particular, the existence of the high-speed Internet encouraged

the dynamic exchange of information about World Cup matches,

players and rules. The Internet, which has become an essential

part of everyday life for the majority of Koreans, helped raise

public awareness about soccer and prompted millions of people

to participate in outdoor cheering campaigns.

Major portal sites were flooded with postings on thousands of online

bulletin boards. Online users scoured the Web to absorb detailed real-time

match reports, player-by-player descriptions, disputes about poor

officiating and other soccer information. Instant messenger also played a

role in spreading real-time news and lively stories to millions of people.

Korea has more than 10 million instant messenger users and many of them

exchanged views and feelings about World Cup matches though the new

Internet communications tool.

During the World Cup games held in June 2002, crowds of people

gathered in the streets in South Korea, not only in Seoul. The Red Devils

organized cheering and celebrating by 24 million people.

Sang Jin Han

describes how the Red Devils carefully planned for the massive cheering

“through on-line discussions about the way of cheering, costumes,

roosters’ songs and slogans, and so on.” The Red Devils functions

democratically and has online and off-line activities. “Anyone who loves

soccer can be a member of the Red Devils,” Sang-Jin Han explains, by

Page 49

going to the website, logging on, and filling out their form. The website

is (http://reddevil.or.kr) When the club started they had 200 members.

During the world cup events, they had a membership of 200,000.

The massive street celebrating during the soccer games has been

compared in importance with the victory of the June 1987 defeat of the

military government in South Korea.

To understand this assessment, it is helpful to look at an article

written during the event by the Gwak Byuyng-chan, the culture editor of

Hankyoreh, a South Korean newspaper. I will quote at length from this

article as it provides a feeling for the unexpected but significant impact

that the world cup event in 2002 had on Korean society. Gwak Byuyng-

-chan writes:

To be honest with you, I was annoyed by the critics who com-

pared the cheering street gatherings in front of the City Hall in

June 2002 to the democratic uprising in June 1987. Much to my

shame I criticized the foolish nature of sports nationalism…and

even encouraged others to be wary of the sly character of

commercialism…. However as time passed, I began to wonder

whether I wasn’t being elitist and authoritarian…. I was blind to

a changed environment and to a changed sensibility. I assumed

that people were running around because of blind nationalism

and commercialism.

However, this was not a group that was mobilized by anybody

nor a group that anyone could mobilize…. On June 25, I

wandered around Gwanghwamoon and in front of City Hall

trying to get an understanding of the future leaders of this coun-

try. Otherwise, my clever brain told me, I would end up an old

cynic confined to my own memories. After spending a long day

wandering amongst young people, I finally understood. Although

trying to understand their passion through this experience was

like a Newtonian scientist trying to understand the theory of

relativism, I understood. What we had experienced at that

moment was the experience of becoming a ‘Great One.’ In a

history with its ups and downs, we had more than our share of

becoming this ‘Great One’ The 4.19 Revolution and 6.10

Page 50

Struggle are two examples. So are the 4.3 Cheju Massacre and

the 5.18 Democracy Movement. The gold collection drive during

the IMF financial bailout was part of this effort too – trying to

find a ray of hope in a cloud of despair....

The flood of supporters in June 2002, however, was no longer

about finding hope. It was about young people dreaming dreams

that soared higher and further than those of the past generations.

Unlike the older generation, the younger generation is ready to

meet the world with open hearts. They have the imagination to

reinvent it and the flexibility to come together and then separate

as the occasion calls for it. The whole world was rapt with

attention on ‘Dae-han Min-gook (Great Korea)’ not just because

of our soccer ability but because of this young generations’s

passion and creativity. Does this mean that their dreams have

come true? No. Does this mean that all this was nothing more

than one summer night’s feast? No. These dreams will continue

to flourish and the responsibility for making sure that they do

belongs to the older generation, which has had the experience of

becoming a Great One through such events as the 6.10 or 4.19….

Not only did the cheering crowds joyously celebrate the Korean team

victories in the World Cup events, they also helped clean the streets when

the event was over. Another aspect of the Red Devils achievement was to

remove the stigma attached to the color red. Previously, avoiding the color

red was a form of anti-communism in South Korea. The Red Devils’

organization of the street cheering is a demonstration of how communica-

tion among netizens that the internet makes possible had a significant

impact on the whole of South Korean society as the celebration unfolded

off-line.

Recognizing the importance of analyzing this experience to the people

of Korea, a symposium was held on July 3, 2002 by the Korean Associa-

tion of Sociological Theory shortly after the World Cup events.

The title

of the symposium was “World Cup and New Community Culture.” The

theme was “Understanding and Interpreting the Dynamics of People

(National People) Shown at the 2002 World Cup.” Sang-jin Han described

the dynamics of the culture that emerged from the World Cup events. Cho

Page 51

Han Hae-joang writes (p. 13):

What Han found during the collective gathering was a new

community that possessed values of open-mindedness and

diversity, of co-existence and respect for others…. Impressed by

the cheering crowds, Han Sang-jin suggested looking for a point

where the values of individualism and collectivism can synergize

rather than collide. He wrote ‘If there is a strong desire for

individual self-expression and spontaneity blooming in the

on-line space on one hand, there must be a strong sense of

cohesion and desire for unity in the socio-cultural reality on the

other. The new community culture will be equipped with the

ability to harness these two forces into a symbiotic relationship.’

In fact, at the symposium, many sociologists confessed to having

been astounded at witnessing what they had considered to be

impossible ‘the coming together of the generations and the

coexistence of the values of collectivism and individualism.’

Influenced by the joy of the World Cup experience, the commit-

tee of Munhwa Yondae (the Citizens’ Network for Cultural

Reform) organized a campaign. They sought to reclaim the

streets for public purposes, and to designate July 1 as a holiday.

Also they gave support to the campaign to establish a 5-day work

week and one month holidays for Koreans.

2) Candle-light Anti-U.S. Demonstrations

On June 13, 2002, while the World Cup games were being held in

South Korea and Japan, two 14 year old Korean school girls were hit and

killed by a U.S. armored vehicle operated by two U.S. soldiers on a

training exercise. Once the games were over, many of those who had been

part of the soccer celebrating took part in protests over the deaths,

demanding that those responsible be punished. In November, 2002, the

two soldiers were tried by a U.S. military court on charges of negligent

homicide. The verdict acquitting them was announced on November 19,

2002. Some protests followed. Then on November 27, 2002, at 6 a.m., a

netizen reporter with the logon name of Ang.Ma posted a message online

on the OhmyNews website saying he would come out with a candle to

Page 52

protest the acquittal of the soldiers. On Saturday, November 30, four days

later, there were evening rallies in 17 cities in South Korea including

thousands of people participating in a candlelight protest in Seoul. They

demanded a retrial of the soldiers and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from

South Korea. In subsequent weeks, candlelight demonstrations spread and

grew in size. Protesters also demanded that the Status of Forces Agree-

ment Treaty (SOFA) between the U.S. and South Korea be amended to

give the Korean government more control over the activities of the U.S.

troops in Korea.

The impact of the “candlelight vigils that started from one netizen’s

[online-ed] suggestion last month,” is described in a newspaper account:

In Gwanghwamun, Seoul, the candles, lit one by one, form a sea.

Tonight, on the 28

, without exception, the candles have

gathered. About 1200 citizens gathered in the ‘Open Citizen’s

Court’ beside the U.S. embassy in Gwanghwamun sway their

bodies to the tunes of ‘Arirang’ which also played during the

World Cup soccer matches last June. Middle-school student Kim

Hee-yun says, ‘Every Saturday, I come here. There is something

that attracts me to this place.’

Opposition to SOFA and to the presence of U.S. troops in South

Korea continued to grow. The most well known outcome of this move-

ment and the event most often cited as a result of the power of Korean

netizens, is the election of Roh Moo-hyun as President of South Korea on

December 19, 2002.

The internet and netizens played a critical role in

Roh’s election.

An article in a women’s newspaper on Dec 7, 2002, refers to the

importance of netizens in South Korea:

The netizens of the Korean Internet powerhouse are magnificent.

They are reviving the youth culture of the Red Devils and the

myth of the World Cup to create a social movement to revise

SOFA.

3) Korean Netizens and the Election of President Roh

Of the candidates potentially running for the Presidency in South

Korea in 2002, Roh Moo-hyun had been considered the underdog and least

Page 53

likely to win. He had made a reputation for himself by his willingness to

run for offices where he was unlikely to win, but where his candidacy

might help to reduce regional antagonisms.

Another basis for Roh’s

popularity was his campaign plank advocating citizen participation in

government. Roh had opened an internet site in August 1999 and his site

was one of the successful candidate websites at the time. In the April 2000

election, Roh ran for a seat to represent Pusan in the National Assembly

as a means of continuing his struggle against regional hostilities.

Though he lost that election, thousands of people were drawn to

Roh’s website and the discussions that followed the failed election effort.

Through these online discussions, the idea was raised of starting an online

fan club for Roh. The Nosamo Roho fan club was started by Jeong Ki Lee

(User ID: Old Fox) on April 15, 2000.

Nosamo also transliterated as

‘Rohsamo,’ stands for ‘those who love Roh.’

The fan club had members both internationally and locally with online

and offline activities organized among the participants. When Nosamo

was created, a goal of the organization was a more participatory democ-

racy. Sang-jin Han, reports that using the internet, the online newspaper

OhmyNews, broadcast “live the inaugural meeting of the club held in

Daejon on June 6, 2000 through the Internet.”

In Spring 2002, the Millennium Democracy Party (MDO) held the

first primary election for the selection of a presidential candidate in the

history of South Korea. Nosamo waged an active primary campaign. “In

cyberspace, they sent out a lot of writings in favor of Roh and Nosamo to

other sites and placed favorable articles on their home pages.” (p. 9) The

internet activity of the fan club made it possible for Roh to win the MDP

nomination. Nevertheless, he was still considered a long shot to win the

Presidency.

Early in the 2002 campaign, the conservative press attacked Roh. In

response, more and more of the public turned to the internet to discuss and

consider the responses to these attacks. Analyzing how these attacks were

successfully countered via online discussion and debate, Yun Young-Min

writes, the “political influences” in discussion boards “comes from logic,

and only logic can survive cyber-debate. This is one of the substantial

changes that the internet has brought about in the realm of politics in

Page 54

South Korea.”

Also Yun documents that as the attacks increased, so did

the number of visits recorded by Roh’s website and other websites

supporting the Roh candidacy. (pp. 148-149) In a table comparing visits

to websites of the two main candidates, Yun documents a significantly

greater number of visits to the Roh website and Roh related websites as

opposed to the websites of his opposing candidate. (p. 151)

Along with the Roh websites, the online newspaper OhmyNews was

helpful to the Roh candidacy. OhmyNews developed a form of partic-

ipatory citizen journalism. The online newspaper helped Roh counter the

criticism of the conservative press. Roh gave his first interview to

OhmyNews after winning the presidency.

The night before the election, a main supporter of Roh, Chung

Mong-joon who had formed a coalition with Roh for the election,

withdrew his support. That night, netizens posted on various websites and

conducted an online campaign to discuss what had happened and what

Roh’s supporters had to do to repair the damage this late defection did to

the campaign. An article in the Korea Times describes how the online

discussion helped to save Roh’s candidacy:

The free-for-all Internet campaign also helped Roh when he lost the

support of Chung Mong-joon just a day before the poll. Unlike other

conventional media such as newspapers and televisions, many Internet

websites gave unbiased views on the political squabble between Roh and

Chung, helping voters to form their reaction…. The Internet is now the

liveliest forum for political debate in Korea, the world leader in broadband

Internet patronized by sophisticated Internet users….

The Korea Times reporter describes the activity of netizens to get out

the vote on election day in support of Roh:

As of 3 p.m. on voting day, the turnout stood at 54.3 percent,

compared with 62.3 percent at the same time during the presi-

dential election in 1997. Because a low turnout was considered

likely fatal for Roh – the young often skip voting – many Internet

users posted online messages to Internet chatting rooms, online

communities and instant messaging services imploring their

colleagues to get to the voting booth. The messages spread by the

tens of thousands, playing a key role in Roh’s victory.

During Roh’s election campaign, netizens turned to the internet to

Page 55

discuss and express their views, views which otherwise would have been

buried. “The advent of the Internet can bring, by accumulating and

reaching critical mass in cyberspace, a political result that anyone could

hardly predict. No longer is public opinion the opinion of the press…. In

fact the press lost authority by their criticisms,” Yun concludes.

Because of the internet, Kim Yong-Ho observes, there is the “shift

from party politics to citizen politics.”

The attitude of the two main

candidates toward the internet proved to be a critical factor determining

the outcome of the election. Roh’s main opponent approached the internet

as a “new technology.” For Roh and his supporters, however, the internet

became “an instrument to change the framework and practice of politics.”

(p. 235) “Certainly, politics in Korea is no longer a monopoly of parties

and politicians,” conclude Yong-Cho Ha and Sangbae Kim.

4) High School Students Protest Hair Length Restrictions

An example of how the younger generation in South Korea found the

internet helpful was the struggle of high school students to oppose hair

length restrictions set by the government and enforced by their schools.

Teachers in some South Korean schools cut the hair of students who have

hair longer than the school regulations permit. Such mandatory hair

cutting, students explained, was not only humiliating, but also can leave

them with a hair cut that is unseemly. Considering the many pressures that

high school students in South Korea are under, an editorial in the Korea

Times, explains:

Most egregious of all are their hairstyles – buzz cuts for boys and

bob cuts or ponytails for girls…. At some schools, teachers still

make narrow, bushy expressways on the crowns of boys’ heads

with hair clippers, and lay bare girls’ ears with scissors. They say

these are for the proper guidance of students by preventing them

from frequenting adult-only places and focusing on only studies.

But this is nothing but violence and abuse.

High school students opposed these restrictions and practices with a

website to discuss the problem and how to organize their protests. Over

70,000 people signed an online petition protesting the hair length

restrictions and practices. Also there were demonstrations organized

online against these practices. The demonstrations were met with a

Page 56

significant show of force by police and from high school teachers.

5) Government Online Forums

Netizen activities in South Korea had an effect on official government

structures. Government officials are under pressure to utilize the forms

that are being developed online. For example, the online website for the

President of Korea had a netizen section. Netizens could log on and post

their problems and complaints. These could then be viewed by anyone else

who logged onto the website. The open forum section of the website was

left relatively free of government restrictions or interference for a while.

Uhm and Haugue provide a description of the participatory sections of the

President’s website. They write:

Behind the outwardly chaotic Open Forum of the BBS on the

Presidential Website, a team works quietly, browsing all the mes-

sages received through the BBS and other channels for user

participation, and sorting them in terms of the need for specific

attention and governmental follow-up. One of the main jobs the

team conducts is to transfer each of the messages to the relevant

section of the Presidential Office, or to the ministry in charge of

the policy area concerned. The other main job is to make a daily

report to the President, based on the issues not necessarily ripe

for media attention but showing signs of potential that could push

the government into difficulties. These interactive channels

function as a dynamic store of political issues, spanning the

gamut of societal interests, ranging from key policy issues like

the amendment of education acts to essentially private matters

like a boundary dispute between neighbors.

Korean government ministries similarly had websites where anyone

could post a message, “even anonymously, and share them with others.”

(p. 28) These websites where offered as a place where “all public opinion”

can be expressed. (p. 28)

Posting to an official site is not necessarily without concern about

retaliation however. Recently, a high school student reported:

We have no channel to convey our opinions to the education

authorities. If we post a petition to a Web site of a provincial

education office, the message is delivered to our school and

Page 57

teachers give us a hard time because of it.

There are other events which demonstrate the power of the net and the

netizen in contemporary Korean politics. For example, there was the

Defeat Campaign for the April 2000 election. NGO’s used the internet to

wage a protest against the reelection of a number of politicians they

proposed were too corrupt or incompetent to continue in office. They

called this a blacklist. Several of the politicians they opposed did not get

reelected.

Rather than gathering further examples, however, there is the

challenge to understand the nature of the practice to extend democracy that

has emerged in South Korea.

D – The Netizen and Netizen Democracy in South Korea

One aspect identified as important for netizen democratic activity is

that the netizen participation is directed toward the broader interests of the

community. Byoungkwan Lee writes:

People who use the Internet for certain purpose are called

‘Netizens’ and they may be classified in various groups ac-

cording to the purpose that they pursue on the Internet. While

some people simply seek specific information they need, others

build their own community and play an active part in the Internet

for the interest of that community. [Michael] Hauben (1997)

defined the term Netizen as the people who actively contribute

online toward the development of the Internet…. In particular,

Usenet news groups or Internet bulletin boards are considered an

‘agora’ where the Netizens actively discuss and debate upon

various issues…. In this manner, a variety of agenda are formed

on the ‘agora’ and in their activity there, a Netizen can act as ‘a

citizen who uses the Internet as a way of participating in political

society’….

Another component of democratic practice is to participate in

discussion and debate. Discussing an issue with others who have a variety

of views is a process that can help one to think through an issue and

develop a thoughtful and common understanding of a problem. The

interactive nature of the online experience allows for a give and take that

Page 58

helps netizens dynamically develop or change their opinions and ideas.

Several Korean researchers describe the benefit of online discussion. For

example, Jongwoo Han writes:

Another aspect of online is that

participating in a discussion with others with a variety of viewpoints

makes it possible to develop a broader and more all sided understanding

of issues.

Jinbong Choi, offers a similar observation:

By showing various perspectives of an issue the public can have

a chance to acquire more information and understand the issue

more deeply.

Byoungkwan Lee observes how the net provides “a public space

where people have the opportunity to express their own opinions and

debate on a certain issue.”

Comparing the experience online with the

passive experience of the user of other media, Lee notes, “Further the role

of the internet as a public space seems to be more dynamic and practical

than that of traditional media such as television, newspapers, and

magazines because of its own distinct characteristics, namely,

interactivity.” (pp. 58-59)

An important function of the internet is to facilitate netizens’ thinking

about and considering public issues and questions. Byoungkwan Lee

explains some of how this occurs:

Various opinions about public issues, for instance, are posted on

the Internet bulletin boards or the Usenet newsgroups by

Netizens, and the opinions then form an agenda in which other

Netizens can perceive the salient issues. As such it is assumed

that not only does the Internet function as the public space, but

it can also function as a medium for forming Internet users’

opinions.

Through their discussion and participation, netizens are able to have

an impact on public affairs. Hyug Baeg Im argues that the internet even

makes it possible for Korean netizens to provide a check on government

activity:

[The] Internet can deliver more and diverse information to

citizens faster in speed and cheaper in cost, disclose information

about politicians in cyber space that works 24 hours, transmit

Page 59

quickly the demands of people to their representatives through

two-way cyber communication, and enable politicians to respond

to people’s demands in their policymaking and legislation in a

speedy manner. In addition, netizens can make use of Internet as

collective action place of monitoring, pressuring and protesting

that works 24 hours and can establish the system of constant

political accountability.

The impact the internet is having on the younger generations of

Korean society has impressed several researchers. For example, Jongwoo

Han observes that younger netizens are more quickly able to participate

in political affairs than was previously possible. Jongwoo Han writes:

Due to its effectiveness as a communications channel, the

Internet shortens the time in which social issues become part of

the national agenda, especially among populations previously

excluded from the national discourse. The time needed for one

generation to learn from the previous one is also shortened. In

newly created Internet cyberspace, the young generation, which

did not use to factor in major social and political discourses in

Korean society, is becoming a major player. The political

orientation of the offline 386 generation was smoothly handed on

to the 2030 apolitical young generation through the 2002 World

Cup and candle light anti-U.S. demonstrations.

(Note: The 386 generation refers to those who were university students in

the 1980s. Also they were the first generation of Korean students who had

access to computers for their personal use. The 2030 generation refers to

students currently in their 20's and 30's and who have grown up with the

internet.)

Jongwoo Han argues that online discussion has brought a needed

development in Korean democracy. All can participate and

communicate:

Due to the revolutionary development of information technology,

the transition of power from one generation to the next will

accelerate, thus maximizing the dynamics of changes in political

systems. The duration of the overall learning and education

process between generations will also be shortened. Especially,

Page 60

the Netizen transcends the boundaries of age, job, gender and

education as long as participants share individual inclinations on

topics.

Explaining how the participatory process works, Kim, Moon, and

Yang provide an example from Nosamo’s experience:

Their internal discussion making process was a microcosm of

participatory democracy in practice. All members voted on a

decision following open deliberations in forums for a given

period of time. Opinions were offered in this process in order to

effect changes to the decision on which people were to vote.

Such online discussion and decision making was demonstrated when

members of Roh’s fan club disagreed with his decision to send South

Korean troops to Iraq in support of the U.S. invasion. Even though they

were members of a fan club, they did not feel obligated to support every

action of the Roh Presidency.

The fan club members held an online

discussion and vote on their website about the U.S. war in Iraq. They

issued a public statement opposing the decision to send South Korean

troops to Iraq.

Several researchers are endeavoring to investigate the netizens

phenomenon and the conscious identity that is being developed. They

believe that the internet is providing an important way to train future

citizens. For example, Sang-jin Han writes:

I argue that a post-traditional and hence post-Confusian attitude

is emerging quite visible particularly among younger generations

who use the Internet, not simply as an instrument of self-interest,

but as a public sphere where netizens freely meet and discuss

matters critically.

In his research, Sang-Jin Han is interested in the impact the internet

is having on the democratic development of South Korean society. He

argues that the online experience provides an alternative experience to the

authoritarian and hierarchical institutions and practices that are prevalent

in society offline. The online experience in itself is a form of a laboratory

for democracy. In the process of participating in the democratic processes

online, a new identity is forged. One begins to experience the identity of

oneself as a participant, not observer. Contributions online are appreciated

Page 61

or the subject of controversy. This is a different world than the one the

ordinary person experiences offline and one that is a more dynamic and

creative experience. Sang-Jin Han refers to research by Sunny Yoon about

the impact of the internet on South Korean youth. Yoon writes:

In short, the Korean new generation experiences an alternative

identity in cyberspace that they have never achieved in real life.

The hierarchical system of ordinary social reality turns up side

down as soon as Korean students enter cyberspace. In interviews,

most students claim that the Internet opened a new world and

new excitement. This is not only because the Internet has

exciting information, but also because it provides them with

anew experience and an alternative hierarchical. It is something

of an experience of deconstructing power in reality, especially in

Korean society, which is strongly hierarchical and repressive for

young students.

IV – Conclusion

In this case study I have explored several aspects of the online

experience that generally are given little attention. South Korean netizens

utilize the internet forums to let each other know of a problem or event, to

discuss problems and to explore how to find solutions. This form of

activity is a critical part of a democratic process. It involves the participant

not in carrying out someone else’s solution to a problem, but in the effort

to frame the nature of the problem and to understand its essence.

The internet doesn’t require that one belong to a particular institution.

A netizen can express his or her opinion, gather the facts that are available,

and hear and discuss the facts gathered and opinions offered by others. Not

only is the internet a laboratory for democracy, but the scale of participa-

tion and contributions is unprecedented. Online discussion makes it

possible for netizens to become active individual and group actors in

social and public affairs. The internet makes it possible for netizens to

speak out independently of institutions or officials.

The netizen is able to participate in an experience that reminds one of

the role that the citizen of ancient Athens or the citoyen just after the

French Revolution could play in society. The experience of such participa-

Page 62

tion is a training ground in which people learn the skills and challenges

through the process. Considering the potential of the internet, the Swedish

researcher Ylva Johansson refers to the potential of technology as

contributing to political participation and the concept of citizenship on a

higher societal level.

Describing this important benefit of being online, Hauben writes:

For the people of the world, the Net provides a powerful means

for peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly allows people to take

control of their lives, rather than that control being in the hands

of others.

This case study of Korean netizens provides a beginning investigation

into the impact that widespread broadband access can bring to society.

The practices of South Korean netizens to extend democracy is prologue

to the changes that netizenship can bring to the world, to the rise of netizen

democracy as a qualitative advance over the former concept of the citizen

and democracy.

Appendix A

The Early Development of Computer Networking in Korea

South Korea’s first networking system was the connection of two computers on May

15, 1982, one at the Department of Computer Science, at Seoul National University and

the other to a computer at the Korean Institute of Electronics Technology (KIET) in Gumi

(presently ETRI ) via a 1200 bps leased line. In January1983, a computer at KAIST

(Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) connected to the other two

computers. These three computers at different networking sites used TCP/IP to connect.

This is the communication protocol which makes it possible to have an internet. This

early Korean computer network was called System Development Network (SDN).* In

August 1983, the Korean SDN was connected to the mcvax computer in the Netherlands

using the Unix networking program UUCP (Unix to-Unix Copy). And in October 1983

the Korean network was connected to a site in the U.S. (HP Labs).

A more formal connection to the U.S. government sponsored network CSNET was

made in December 1984. In 1990, the Korean network joined the U.S. part of the internet.

*See “A Brief History of the Internet in Korea,”

https://net.its.hawaii.edu/history/

Korean_Internet_History.pdf

Page 63

Notes:

1. See for example, Michael Hauben, Preface, in Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben,

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer Society

Press, 1997, p. ix.

2. IBID., Chapter 1, p. 3.

3. This is a concept that Michael Hauben developed in an article “What the Net Means

to Me,” online at:

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Work

s/Amateur_Computerist/What_the_Net_Means_to_Me.txt

4. “Where and When was Democracy Invented,” Comparative Studies in Society and

History 41(4), 1999, pp. 660-690. Online at: http://pscourses.ucsd.edu/ps200b/Markoff

%20Where %20When%20Democracy%20Invented.pdf

5. A significant caveat about this case study is that computer networking and the internet

were developed relatively early in South Korea. (See Appendix A) The country is a

showplace for the spread of broadband internet access to a large percentage of the

population. A study of the spread of the internet in South Korea is a study of an advanced

situation which allows one to see into the future. This study raises the question of whether

knowledge of the practices of the South Korean netizen movement can help to extend

democracy elsewhere around the world.

6. See note 1, Chapter 12, pp. 214-221.

7. Myung Koo Kang, “The Grassroots Online Movement and Changes in Korean Civil

Society,” Review of Media, Information and Society 3, 1998, pp. 107-127.

8. Jongseon Shin, soc.culture.korea, April 10, 2005. Online at:

https://groups.google.com/

forum/#!original/soc.culture.korean/gbZORadACPQ/IxrUYb7FuE8J

9. Heekyung Hellen Kim, Jae Yun Moon and Shinkyu Yang, “Broadband Penetration and

Participatory Politics: South Korea Case,” Proceedings of the 37

Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, 2004, p. 4.

10. IBID., p. 5.

11. Sang-Jin Han, “Confucian Tradition and the Young Generation in Korea: The Effect

of Post-Traditional Global Testing,” International Symposium Dialogue among Youth in

East Asia Project, Yingjie Exchange Center of Peking University, delivered January 14,

2004.

12. Yong-Cho Ha and Sangbae Kim, “The Internet Revolution and Korea: A

Socio-cultural Interpretation,” International Conference on Re-Booting the Miracle? Asia

and the Internet Revolution in the Age of International Indeterminacy, Seoul, South

Korea, December 4, 2002. Online at:

http://www.sangkim.net/it&korea.pdf

13. See Hyug Baeg Im, From Democratic Consolidation to Democratic Governance: 21

Century South Korean Democracy in Comparative Perspective, p. 28.

14. See note 11, p. 10.

Page 64

15. Translated and quoted in Hae-joang Cho Han, “Beyond the FIFA World Cup: An

Ethnography of the ‘Local’ in South Korea around the 2002 World Cup,” Inter-Asia

Cultural Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2004, p. 11.

16. IBID., p. 5.

17. IBID., pp. 17-18.

18. See Korea Times articles: Na Jeong-ju, “Anti-U.S. Protests Held Nationwide Over

Acquittals of GIs,” Korea Times, November 27, 2002 and Na Jeong-ju, “Entertainers,

Priests Join Anti U.S. Protests,” Korea Times December 3, 2002

19. See note 15, p. 22.

20. Kim Hyong-eok, “The Two Koreas: A Chance to Revive,” Korea Times, December

27, 2002. This article in the Korea Times attributes Roh’s election to the euphoria

generated by the World Cup Soccer Games, the hostility to the U.S. generated by the

deaths of the two Korean school girls and the inadequacy of the U.S. response.

21. See note 15, p. 14.

22. Yun Young-Min, “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering Focusing on the 2002

Presidential Election in Korea,” Korea Journal, Autumn 2003, pp. 141-164.

23. Jongwoo Han. “Internet, Social Capital, and Democracy in the Information Age:

Korea's Defeat Movement, the Red Devils, Candle Light Anti-U.S. Demonstration, and

Presidential Election during 2000-2002,” p. 15, (no longer online). See also, Han

Jongwoo, Networked Information Technologies, Elections, and Politics: Korea and the

United States, Lanham, Maryland, Lexington Books, 2012, p. 85.

24. See note 11, p. 8.

25. See note 22, p. 157.

26. Kim Deok-hyun, “Roh’s Online Supporters Behind Victory,” Korea Times, December

23, 2002.

27. IBID.

28. See note 22, p. 143.

29. Kim Yong-Ho, “Political Significance of the 2002 Presidential Election Outcome and

Political Prospects for the Roh Administration,” Korea Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2003, p.

233.

30. Yong-Chool Ha and Sangbae Kim, “The Internet Revolution and Korea: A

Socio-cultural Interpretation,” paper deliveredDec. 4, 2005 at the conference Re-Booting

the Miracle? Asia and the Internet Revolution in the Age of International Indeterminacy,

Seoul, South Korea, December 4-5, 2005, p. 8.

31. “No Forced Haircut, Please,” Korea Times, May 5, 2005.

32. Seung-Yong Uhm and Rod Hague, “Electronic Governance, Political Participation

and Virtual Community: Korea and U.K. Compared in Political Context,” paper presented

at European Consortium for Political Research, Joint Workshops, Workshop on

“Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via new ICTs,”

Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble, France, 6-11 April 2001, p. 24.

Page 65

33. Bae Keun-min, “High School Students Stand Up for Rights,” Korea Times, May 10,

2005.

34. Byoungkwan Lee, Karen M. Lancendorfer and Ki Jung Lee, “Agenda-Setting and the

Internet: the Intermedia Influence of Internet Bulletin Boards on Newspaper Coverage of

the 2000 General Election in South Korea,” Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 15,

No 1, 2005, p. 58.

35. See note 23, 17.

36. Jinbong Choi, “Public Journalism in Cyberspace: A Korean Case Study,” Global

Media Journal, Vol. 2, No 3, 2003, p. 27. Online at:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/

5f61/7a8501127c4c99621569d649d6e49b8688c5.pdf?_ga=2.120817920.966938231.15

01521414-2089356332.1501521414.

37. See note 34, pp. 58-59.

38. IBID.

39. Hyug Baeg Im, “Democratic Consolidation and Democratic Governance: 21

Century

South Korean Democracy in Comparative Perspective,” Sixth Forum on Reinventing

Government, Seoul, South Korea, May 24-27, 2005.

40. See note 23, p. 4.

41. Han Jongwoo, 2002, pp. 16-17.

42. See note 9,

43. An article in the Korea Times on March 24, 2003, quotes a member of the fan club:

“When we say we love Roh Moo-hyun, we do not mean Roh is always right. We simply

mean that we love his ideas for new politics and a democracy in which the people are the

real owners of the country.” Byun Duk-kun, “‘Nosamo’ Opposes Assistance to Iraq War.”

44. See note 11, p. 4.

45. Sunny Yoon, “Internet Discourse and the Habitus of Korea’s New Generation,”

Culture, Technology, Communication, edited by Charles Ess with Fay Sudweeks, State

University of New York, 2001, p. 255.

46. Ylva Johansson, “Civic Engagement in Change – The Role of the Internet,” European

Consortium for Political Research, Edinburgh, U.K., 2003.

47. See note 1, for example, Chapter 18, “The Computer as a Democratizer,” pp. 315-

320.

48. Hauben quotes Steve Welch who recognized the importance of all having access

(IBID., p. 27): “If we can get to the point where anyone who gets out of high school has

used computers to communicate on the Net or a reasonable facsimile or successor to it,

then we as a society will benefit in ways not currently understandable. When access to

information is as ubiquitous as access to the phone system, all Hell will break loose. Bet

on it.”

Page 66

Bibliography

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “‘You are entrapped in an imaginary well’: the formation of

subjectivity within compressed development – a feminist critique of modernity and

Korean culture.” Inter-Asia Culture Studies. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2000. Pp 49-69.

ChoHan, Hae-joang. “Youth, Internet and Culture: Based on the Haja Experimental

Project.” Oceans Connect: Maritime Perspectives In & Beyond the Classroom. John

Hope Franklin Center for International Studies Conference. Duke University. Feb.

28 - March 3, 2002.

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “Youth, Temporary Autonomous Zone, and Internet in South

Korea. From the Book to the Internet: Communications Technologies, Human

Motions, and Cultural Formations in Eastern Asia.” Paper Presented at Oregon

University Freeman Conference. October 16-18, 2003.

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “Beyond the FIFA’s World Cup - Ethnography of the ‘Local’ in

South Korea around the 2002 World Cup.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. Vol. 5, No.

1. Pp. 9-26.

Choi, Jibing. “Public Journalism in Cyberspace: A Korean Case Study.”

Global Media Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1. 2003. Online at:

h t t p s : / / p d f s . s e m a n t i c s c h o l a r . o r g / 5 f 6 1 / 7

a8501127c4c99621569d649d6e49b8688c5.pdf?_ga=2.120817920.

966938231.1501 521414-2089356332.1501521414

Chon, Kilnam, Park, Hyunje, Kang, Kyungran, and Lee, Youngeum. “A

Brief History of the Internet in Korea.” Korea Internet History

Project. July29, 2005. https://sites. google.com/site/koreainternet

history/publication/brief-hi story-korea-eng-ver

Ha, Yong-Chool and Kim Sangbae. “The Internet Revolution and Korea:

A Socio-cultural Interpretation.” Paper delivered Dec 4, 2005 at the

conference Re-Booting the Miracle? Asia and the Internet Revolution

in the Age of International Indeterminacy. Seoul, South Korea. Dec.

4-5, 2005. Online at: http://www.sangkim. net/it& korea.pdf

Han, Jongwoo. “Internet, Social Capital, and Democracy in the Informa-

tion Age: Korea’s Defeat Movement, the Red Devils, Candle Light

Anti-U.S. Demonstration and Presidential Election During

2000-2002.” September 2002.

Han, Jongwoo. Networked Information Technologies, Elections, and

Politics: Korea and the United States. Lanham. Md. Lexington

Books. 2012.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Paradoxical Modernity and the Quest for Neo Communi-

Page 67

tarian Alternative.”Prepared for the workshop on The Normative Case

of Modernity and its Cultural Contextualization. German Institute for

Japanese Studies, Tokyo, Japan. Nov. 16-17, 2004.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Modernization and the Rise of Civil Society: The Rule of

the ‘Middling Grassroots’ for Democratization in Korea.” Human

Studies, Vol. 24. 2001. Pp. 113-132.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Confucian Tradition and the Young Generation in Korea:

The Effect of Post-Traditional Global Testing.” International

Symposium Dialogue among Youth in East Asia Project, Yingjie

Exchange Center of Peking University. Delivered January 14, 2004.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Three Prime-Movers in the Contested Civil Society: Why

and How Social Transformation Occurs in Korea.” Keynote Speech

ITS World Congress of Sociology. Beijing. July 7-11, 2004.

Im, Hyug Baeg. “Democratic Consolidation and Democratic Governance:

Century South Korean Democracy in Comparative Perspective.”

Forum on Reinventing Government. Seoul, South Korea. May

24-27, 2005. Johansson, Ylva. “Civic Engagement in Change – The

Role of the Internet.” European Consortium for Political Research.

Edinburgh, U.K. 2003.

Kang, Myung Koo. “The Grassroots Online Movement and Changes in

Korean Civil Society.” Review of Media, Information and Society.

Vol. 3. 1998. Pp. 107-127.

Kim, Heekyung Hellen, Moon, Jae Yun and Yang Shinkyu. “Broadband

Penetration and Participatory Politics: South Korea Case.” Proceed-

ings of the 37

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

2004. Pp. 1-10. Kim, Junki. “Electronic Advocacy by Non Govern-

mental Organizations in Korea: Changing the Practice of Political

Advocacy.” March 15-16, 2001.

Kim, Yong-Ho. “Political Significance of the 2002 Presidential Election

Outcome and Political Prospects for the Roh Administration.” Korea

Journal, Vol. 43, No.2. 2003. Pp. 230-256.

Kwon, Haesoo and Lee, Jong Youl. “NGO’s Political Reform Movement

Process via the Internet: Focusing on‘Election Defeat Movement’ in

Korea.” International Review of Public Administration. Vol. 8, No.

2. 2004. Pp. 49-57.

Page 68

Lee, Byoungkwan, Lancendorfer, Karen M. and Lee, Ki Jung.

“Agenda-Setting and the Internet: the Intermedia Influence of Internet

Bulletin Boards on Newspaper Coverage of the 2000 General Election

in South Korea.” Asian Journal of Communication. Vol. 15, No 1.

2005.

Lee, Jae Joung. Political Changes and Challenges in Korean Society,

Session 1, Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, 2002.

Markoff, John. “Where and When was Democracy Invented?” Compara-

tive Studies in Society and History. Vol. 41, No. 4, 1999. Pp. 660-690.

O n l i n e a t :

h t t p : / / p s c o u r s e s .

ucsd.edu/ps200b/Markoff%20Where%20When%20Democracy%2

0Invented.pdf in 1996. Pp. 109-127.

Shin, Jongseon. “Online community of the 1990s and Korean Netizens

movement.” soc.culture.korea April 10, 2005. Online at:

h t t p s : / / g r o u p s . g o o g l e . c o m / f o r u m / # ! o r i g i n a l /

soc.culture.korean/gbZORadACPQ/IxrUYb7FuE8J

Uhm, Seung-Yong and Hague, Rod. “Electronic Governance, Political

Participation and Virtual Community: Korea and U.K. Compared in

Political Context.” Paper presented at European Consortium for

Political Research, Joint Workshops, Workshop on “Electronic

Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via new

ICTs,” Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble, France, 6-11 April

2001.

Yoon, Sunny. “Technological Choice and Transnational Capital Power:

Disputes on the European or the U.S. model of Digital Television in

South Korea.” Paper presented at IAMC. Porto Alegre. July, 2004.

Yoon, Sunny. “Internet Discourse and the Habitus of Korea’s New

Generation.” Culture, Technology, Communication. Edited by Charles

Ess with Fay Sudweeks. State University of New York. 2001. Pp.

241-260.

Yun, Young Min. “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering Focusing on the

2002 Presidential Election in Korea.” Korea Journal. Autumn 2003.

Pp. 141-164.

Page 69

[Editor’s Note: The following appeared on various Usenet newsgroups on

Feb. 7, 1996. It was first written for a class at Teachers College, Dept. of

Communications, Columbia University, N.Y., N.Y.]

What Is of Value to

Me On the Net

by Michael Hauben

[Author’s Note (1996): This was thoughts I wrote up in response to a

computer and writing class in which I participate. I felt it worthwhile to

share with others outside the class, and to hear people’s responses. Please

respond to the newsgroup so we can keep a discussion going. However,

if possible please e-mail me a response so I know in which newsgroup to

check.]

I was curious to hear my TA [Teaching Assistant] speak about the

“What’s hot!” lists on Yahoo and the various web search tools. The reason

is that for me these represent “What’s not!” In fact the media hype

surrounding the World Wide Web (WWW) is being driven by the desires

of commercial entities to make as large a profit as possible. This is not

why I have used the Net, and not why I decided to make it my area of

study. I am not saying that the web is not useful; I find it a valuable way

to self-publish my writings and other creations. However, it is not what the

media is hyping it to be. At some point in the future, I believe the hype

will cause the bubble to burst. I predict that on-line advertising will

dissipate when it is found it does not produce results. Already I have read

articles on how people skip the ads by turning graphics off. Ha!

The reason why “What’s hot” is not is I am not interested in the

presence of big media companies on the Internet, WWW or otherwise.

Fox, Sony, the Gap and the like already hold reign over the conventional

media of TV, Radio, print advertisement and other mass medias. I am sick

of the billboards around New York City, the magazine and subway

Page 70

advertisements and the commercials polluting television. I am also sick of

the effect this has on our society as a whole.

The Internet has represented a rebellion against these forces, a way for

the little person to find an area free of commercial waste. I like to use the

model of Central Park, as a public space, a public commons where people

can escape from the giant media moguls to have some fresh air and space

to be themselves. A cooperative global community has developed on-line

in the communication channels which exist – in particular Usenet and

mailing lists. The value of online has been in the social value. You come

and join the community and make your voluntary contributions – whether

it be responding to Usenet posts, compiling FAQs or ftp sites, now setting

up valuable web pages, helping newbie’s, protecting the Net from

different kinds of attacks, contributing new technological developments

in computer code, etc. These contributions are in a sense selfless. While

they might help the individual, they are given to the community as a

contribution to the whole of the community. And in return, since others

are doing the same, one eventually gets value. This is a community where

the concept of a ‘stranger’ does not exist.

This is the world of the Net (Internet, Usenet, etc) and the world of

the Netizen, or citizen of the Net. This is what I am a part of and where I

feel that I am connected to a larger part of the world. Being part of a world

community is important, and very different from surfing the Net to read

the latest multimedia advertisement for Disney or Sony – I’m sick of

movie previews, thank you. In fact, I have a music index of web pages off

my home page that is getting harder to maintain. This is true as I am

getting more and more requests to put on major labels and artists that flood

out all of the fledgling artists or fan based pages which deserve much more

of a chance to be heard. I am interested in the “new” contributions of the

new person.

The Net is the chance for the little person, all of us, to gain more

control over our lives from large corporate entities which have grabbed

control of all past mass medias. Here is a chance for people to communi-

cate with each other, for each other, and with each other against those that

have interest in preventing us from organizing ourselves. Here we can

distribute/broadcast our academic and creative works around the world for

Page 71

others to see, and for us to receive comments, questions and criticisms.

Mediums of communication represent power and control. Here is a chance

to organize to protect and keep the Net in the control of the people. Please

join this fight.

The places where I see this medium developing for the people is in

the “communication” as opposed to “information.” Clinton/Gore get it all

wrong when they look toward the future of the Information Super

highway. What we have is a communications interconnection. The give

and take in the public discussion areas and forums on-line bring the

potential for real participatory democracy. It is important for the future of

our society to make literacy of discussion on-line important, and to make

time in people’s lives to join that ever-flowing discussion.

The underground has become mainstream by highlighting the

bottom-up rather than top-down. This is important to preserve as a place,

a public commons for the individual to make his contribution to society.

I could go on, but I am losing my stream of thought. I would be

interested in hearing thoughts and comments about this. I also hope in this

class to work toward studying how writing plays a part in this since the

communication channels I speak of are primarily text-based.

I feel it is important to spread access and knowledge of the Net. As a

network of different contributions, ideas and thoughts, it is important that

all possible parts can become interconnected to the Net. Commercial

providers will not strive for this as all points are not profitable to provide

access to. There will always be someone who lives too far a way or who

has a special problem to make it less of a profit maker. I feel it is

important for society to understand the social value of connecting all its

parts, giving all of its parts equal access to the information and

communication out there and at the same time allowing those parts to

provide their unique contribution. To me, the only way for society to make

access and knowledge of the Nets and computers available to all is

through the combined efforts of governments. The government is the

social form for making things available to the masses. There are historical

reasons for this as well.

In addition, to understand why the Net is the way it is, and how it can

be this way, I feel it is important to understand the historical origins and

Page 72

development of the Net. Like I mentioned earlier in class, Usenet was

developed in 1979 in order to help further the development of the Unix

operating system. In addition, technology requires a community of people

active, a cooperative community, for its development. Technology only

develops through the working together of people, not the competing of

people.

Lastly, if you are interested in previous writings and research I have

about the Net, you can look to

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/papers/

Thanks,

See also: Amateur Computerist Newsletter at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ and WWW

Music Index at: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/

[Editor’s Note: The following paper was prepared for a program at the UN

Headquarters in New York City on May2, 2014. It can be seen online at:

http://www. columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/May2.pdf]

Netizen Journalism

The Emergence of New Forms of News

that Can

Improve the Policy Making Process

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

I – Preface

In this paper I want to explore the new news that is emerging and how

this new form of news is making it possible to improve the policymaking

process. This new news is part of the phenomenon I refer to as netizen

Page 73

journalism.

In exploring this question I will discuss a case study as an example to

consider toward looking at the potential for both the present and future of

journalism that this new phenomenon represents.

II – First some background

In October of 2006, I began covering the United Nations as a

journalist for the English edition of the South Korean online newspaper,

OhmyNews International. When Ohmynews ended its English edition in

2010, I became a correspondent covering the UN for an English language

blog –

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblogat the web site of the German

newspaper Die Tageszeitung. Both OhmyNews International and my blog

at the taz.de web site are online publications.

With Michael Hauben, I am co-author of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (Hauben & Hauben, 1997).

The book was first published online in January 1994. Then, on May 1,

1997, the print edition of the book Netizens was published in English and

in October, a Japanese translation was published. This was the first book

to recognize that along with the development of the Internet, a new form

of citizenship, called netizenship has emerged. This is a form of citizen-

ship that has developed based on the broader forms of political participa-

tion and empowerment made possible by the Net.

I want to share a brief overview of the origin, use and impact of the

netizen concept and its relation to what I call netizen journalism before

presenting a case study about the impact netizen journalism has had on the

UN Security Council’s conflict resolution process.

III – Introduction

While now many people are interested in the impact of the Internet on

society, pioneering research was done by my co-author Michael Hauben

in the early 1990s when the Internet was first beginning to spread and to

connect people around the world. In his research, Hauben recognized that

there were people who appreciated the communication the Internet made

possible and that these people worked to spread the Net and to do what

Page 74

they felt needed for it to help to create a better world. Taking the common

network term, ‘net.citizen’ used online at the time, Hauben proposed that

these people who worked to contribute to the Net and the bigger world it

was part of were ‘netizens.’

In an article he wrote on the impact of the Net on journalism, he

recognized that many people online were frustrated with the mainstream

media and that the netizens would be creating a broader and more wide-

spread media. As Hauben recognized in the early 1990s “the collective

body of people assisted by (the Net)…has grown larger than any individ-

ual newspaper….” (Hauben, M., 1997b: 233). Predicting the important

impact the Net and Netizens would have on the future of journalism and

the media, Hauben (1997a: 3-4) wrote:

A new world of connections between people – either privately

from individual to individual or publicly from individuals to the

collective mass of many on the Net is possible. The old model of

distribution of information from the central Network Broadcast-

ing Company is being questioned and challenged. The top-down

model of information being distributed by a few for mass-

consumption is no longer the only news. Netnews brings the

power of the reporter to the Netizen. People now have the ability

to broadcast their observations or questions around the world and

have other people respond. The computer networks form a new

grassroots connection that allows the excluded sections of society

to have a voice. This new medium is unprecedented. Previous

grassroots media have existed for much smaller sized selections

of people. The model of the Net proves the old way does not

have to be the only way of networking. The Net extends the idea

of networking – of making connections with strangers that prove

to be advantageous to one or both parties.

This broader collective of netizens and journalists empowered by the

Net are participating in generating and transmitting the news toward

creating a better society. This is a basis for developing a conception of

netizen journalism.

I want to look at a news event about Korea and the UN in the context

of this description of the news the Net makes possible and then consider

Page 75

the implication of this case study for the kind of journalism that I propose

netizens and the Internet are making possible.

IV – Korea

First some background about South Korea and the Net and Netizen.

In February of 2003, I was glancing at the front page summaries of the

articles in an issue of the Financial Times. I saw a surprising headline for

an article continued later in the issue. The article said that in 2002 netizens

in South Korea had elected the President of the country, Roh Moo-hyun.

He had just taken office on February 25, 2003. The new President

promised that the Internet would be influential in the form of government

he established. Also I learned that an online Korean newspaper called

OhmyNews and South Korean netizens had been important making these

developments possible. Colleagues encouraged me to get in contact with

OhmyNews and to learn more about the netizens activities in South

Korea and about OhmyNews.

I subsequently learned that both South Korea and China are places

where the role of netizens is important in building more democratic

structures for society. I began to pay attention to both of these netizen

developments. South Korea, for example, has been advanced in grassroots

efforts to create examples of netizen forms for a more participatory

decision making processes. I wrote several research papers documenting

the achievements and activities of Korean netizens (Hauben, R., 2005;

2006a; 2007a)

V – Reporting on the UN

By October 2006 the second five year term for Kofi Annan as the

Secretary General of the United Nations was soon to end. One of the main

contenders to become the 8

Secretary General of the UN was the Foreign

Minister of South Korea, Ban Ki-moon. By 2006, I was writing regularly

as a featured columnist for OhmyNews International, the English language

edition of OhmyNews. On October 9, 2006, Ban Kimoon won the Security

Council nomination. This nomination was to be approved by the General

Assembly on October 13. I thought this would be a historic event for

Page 76

South Korea. I asked the Editor of OhmyNews International (OMNI) if I

could cover the UN for it. He agreed and I was able to get my credential

in time to go to the General Assembly meeting when the General

Assembly voted to accept the Security Council’s nomination of Ban

Ki-moon.

I was surprised that some of the speeches welcoming Ban Ki-moon

as the Secretary General elect were meaningful speeches referring to

actual problems at the UN such as the need for reform of the Security

Council. A significant focus of the comments to the new Secretary

General from member states emphasized the importance of communica-

tion at the UN. That it was critical for the incoming Secretary General to

listen to all states and to hear their views Witnessing the vote for a new

Secretary General who was from South Korea, I wondered if the Internet

would be able to have any impact on the new Secretary General and on

what happened at the United Nations, since the Internet had been able to

make it possible for netizens in South Korea to impact politics.

The very next day, on October 14, the Security Council took up to

condemn the recent nuclear test by North Korea. This had been North

Korea’s first nu clear test. The Security Council imposed sanctions on

North Korea, not giving the North Korean Ambassador to the UN, Pak Gil

Yon a chance to respond until after the sanctions had been voted on. When

the North Korean Ambassador responded, he referred among other issues,

to financial sanctions that the U.S. had imposed on North Korea. No one

in the Security Council asked him what he was referring to or how this

affected the issues the Security Council had just acted on. (Hauben, R.,

2007c)

It impressed me that just as a new Secretary General from South

Korea was being chosen at the UN, at the same time sanctions were being

imposed on North Korea. The Security Council acted against North Korea

before hearing its views on the issue they were considering. This was in

sharp contrast to the emphasis member nations put on the importance of

hearing the views of all members when they welcomed Ban Ki moon to

the United Nations in the meeting just one day earlier in the General

Assembly.

The article I wrote for OhmyNews International described this

Page 77

situation. It explained:

The urgent problem facing the UN at this juncture in history is

not whether North Korea has developed and tested a nuclear

device. It is the breakdown reflected by the lack of participation

and investigation by the international community into how a

crisis will be handled once it develops, and whether the concerns

and problems of those involved in the crisis will be considered as

part of the process of seeking a solution. It is how the UN

functions when tensions reach a point where serious attention is

needed to help to understand and solve a problem. (Hauben, R.,

2006b)

VI – The Phenomenon of Netizen Journalism

In the research I have been doing and the experiences I have had

exploring the potential of what I call netizen journalism, several questions

have been raised:

What is this new form of news and what are its characteristics?

Is this something different from traditional journalism?

Is there some significant new aspect represented by netizen

journalism?

Traditionally, the press can function as a watchdog for society by

exposing the use and abuse of power. Or, the press can act to support the

abuse of political power. If netizen journalism can provide a more accurate

understanding of conflicts, it can help make more likely the peaceful

resolution of these conflicts.

VII – The Cheonan – Some Background

The Cheonan conflict which was brought to the UN in 2010 provides

an important example of how netizen journalism has helped to make a

significant contribution to a peaceful resolution of a conflict by the

Security Council. The Cheonan incident concerns a South Korean naval

ship, a Navy Corvette, which broke in two and sank on March 26, 2010.

Forty-six of the crew members died in the tragedy. At the time the

Cheonan was involved in U.S./South Korea naval exercises in an area in

Page 78

the West Sea/Yellow Sea between North Korea and China. The sinking of

the Cheonan and the South Korean government’s investigation have been

the subject of much discussion on the Internet.

Initially, the South Korean government and the U.S. government said

there was no indication that North Korea was involved. Then at a press

conference on May 20, 2010, the South Korean government claimed that

a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine exploded in the water near

the Cheonan, causing a pressure wave that was responsible for the sinking.

Many criticisms of this scenario have been raised.

First, there was no direct evidence of any North Korean submarine in

the vicinity of the Cheonan. Nor was there any evidence that a torpedo was

actually fired causing a pressure wave phenomenon. Hence the South

Korean government had no actual case that could be presented in a court

of law to support its claims. In fact, if this claim of a pressure wave were

true, even those involved in the investigation of the incident acknowledge

that “North Korea would be the first to have succeeded at using this kind

of a bubble jet torpedo action in actual fighting.” (Lee, Y., 2010)

VIII – The Cheonan Press Conference and the Local

Election

A press conference was held by the South Korean government on

May 20, to announce that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of

the Cheonan. May 20, it turns out, was also the start of the local and

regional election period. Many South Koreans were suspicious that the

accusation was a ploy to help the ruling party candidates win in the

elections. The widespread suspicions about the government’s motives led

to the ruling party’s losing many of the local election contests. These

election results demonstrated the deep distrust among the South Korean

population of the motives behind the South Korean government’s

accusations about North Korea’s responsibility for the sinking of the

Cheonan.

In their article, “Blogging as ‘Recoding’: A Case Study of the

Discursive War over the Sinking of the Cheonan”, Kim, Jeong, Khang and

Kim (2011), document that in the period between the day of the accident,

March 26, 2010 and June 16, 2010 there were more than 120,000 posts by

Page 79

netizens about the sinking of the Cheonan. Though they reduced these to

a sample set of 354, they found that the majority of the posts were critical

of the Korean government’s claims about the sinking of the Cheonan.

Many netizens were critical of the investigation that the South Korean

government conducted and sought to challenge the conclusions.

Significantly, netizens demonstrated how they were able to have an

impact on the framing of the Cheonan story. They also were to have an

impact on how the issue was to be treated at the UN Security Council.

IX – The Cheonan and Netizen Journalism

While there was a substantial response to the Korean government’s

claims among Korean netizens, the issue also spread internationally.

Netizens who live in different countries and speak different languages

took up to critique the claims of the South Korean government about the

cause of the sinking of the Cheonan. This netizen activity appears to have

acted as a catalyst affecting the actions of the UN Security Council in its

treatment of the Cheonan dispute.

Among the responses were substantial analyses by non-governmental

organizations like SPARK, PSPD, Peaceboat and others, which were

posted on the Internet, either in English, in Korean, or in both languages.

Some of these online posts were in the form of letters that were also sent

to the members of the UN Security Council (Hauben, R., 2010a; 2010c).

At the time, I saw discussions and critiques of the Korean government’s

claims at American, Japanese and Chinese web sites, in addition to

conversation and postings about the Cheonan on South Korean web sites.

One such critique included a three part analysis by the South Korean

NGO People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD).

This

analysis raised a number of questions and problems with the South Korean

government’s case. The PSPD document was posted widely on the

Internet and also sent to the President of the United Nations Security

Council for distribution to those Security Council members interested and

to the South Korean Mission to the UN.

While there were many blog comments about the Cheonan incident

in Korean, there were also some bloggers writing in English who became

active in critiquing the South Korean investigation and the role of the U.S.

Page 80

in the conflict. One blogger, Scott Creighton who uses the pen name Willy

Loman, or American Everyman, wrote a post (Creighton, 2010a) titled

“The Sinking of the Cheonan: We are being lied to.” The South Korean

government had claimed that a diagram it had displayed at the press

conference on May20 was from a North Korean weapons sales brochure

which offered a torpedo similar to the torpedo part it claimed to have

found near where the ship sank. The torpedo was identified as the

CHT-02D. In a post he titled “A Perfect Match?,” Creighton showed how

there was a discrepancy between the diagram displayed by the South

Korean government in the press conference, and the part of the torpedo it

had on display in the glass case below the diagram (http://willyloman.

files.wordpress.com/2010/05/not-a-perfect-match-updated2.jpg). He dem-

onstrated that the diagram did not match the part of the torpedo on display.

He pointed out several discrepancies between the two. For example, one

of the components of the torpedo shown was in the propeller section, but

in the diagram, the component appeared in the shaft section. There were

many comments in response to this post, including some from netizens in

South Korea. Also the mainstream conservative media in South Korea

carried accounts of this blogger’s critique. Three weeks later, at a news

conference, a South Korean government official acknowledged that the

diagram presented by the South Korean government was not of the same

torpedo as the part displayed in the glass case. Instead the diagram dis-

played was of the PT97W torpedo, not the CHT-02D torpedo as claimed.

In a post titled “Thanks to Valuable Input” describing the significance

of having documented one of the fallacies in the South Korean govern-

ment’s case, Creighton (2010b) writes:

(I)n the end, thanks to valuable input from dozens of concerned

people all across the world…. Over 100,000 viewers read that

article and it was republished on dozens of sites all across the

world (even translated). A South Korean MSM outlet even

posted our diagram depicting the glaring discrepancies between

the evidence and the drawing of the CHT-O2D torpedo, which a

high-ranking military official could only refute by stating he had

40 years military experience and to his knowledge, I had none.

But what I had, what we had, was literally thousands of people

Page 81

all across the world, scientists, military members, and just

concerned investigative bloggers who were committed to the

truth and who took the time to contribute to what we were doing

here.

‘40 years military experience’ took a beating from ‘we the people

World-Wide’ and that is the way it is supposed to be.

This is just one of a number of serious questions and challenges that

were raised about the South Korean government’s scenario of the sinking

of the Cheonan.

Other influential events which helped to challenge the South Korean

government’s claims were a press conference in Japan held on July 9 by

two academic scientists. The two scientists presented results of experi-

ments they did which challenged the results of experiments the South

Korean government used to support its case. These two scientists also

wrote to the Security Council with their findings.

Another significant challenge to the South Korean government report

was the finding of a Russian team of four sent to South Korea to look at

the data from the investigation and to do an independent evaluation of it.

The team of naval experts visited South Korea from May 30 to June 7. The

Russian team did not accept the South Korean government’s claim that a

pressure wave from a torpedo caused the Cheonan to sink.

Acquiring a

leaked copy of the Russian Team’s report, the Hankyoreh newspaper in

South Korea reported that the Russian investigators determined that the

ship had come in contact with the ocean floor and a propeller and shaft

became entangled in a fishing net. Also the investigators thought it likely

that an old underwater mine had exploded near the Cheonan adding to the

factors that led to the ship sinking.

Such efforts along with online posts and discussions by many netizens

provided a catalyst for the actions of the UN Security Council concerning

the Cheonan incident.

When the UN Security Council took up the Cheonan issue in June, I

learned that some of the members of the Council knew of the critiques of

the South Korean government investigation which blamed North Korea for

sinking the ship.

Page 82

X – The Cheonan and the UN Security Council

After doing poorly in the local and regional elections in South Korea,

the South Korean government brought the dispute over the sinking of the

Cheonan to the United Nations Security Council in June 2010. A

Presidential Statement was agreed to a month later, in July (Hauben, R.,

2010b).

An account of what happened in the Security Council during this

process is described in an important article that has appeared in several

different Spanish language publications (Guerrero, 2010) The article

describes the experience of the Mexican Ambassador to the UN, Claude

Heller in his position as president of the Security Council for the month

of June 2010. (The presidency rotates each month to a different Security

Council member.)

In a letter to the Security Council dated June 4, South Korea asked the

Council to take up the Cheonan dispute (United Nations Security Council,

2010a). Park Im-kook, then the South Korean Ambassador to the UN,

requested that the Security Council consider the matter of the Cheonan and

respond in an appropriate manner. The letter described the investigation

into the sinking of the Cheonan carried out by South Korean government

and military officials. In the letter South Korea accused North Korea of

sinking the South Korean ship. How would the Mexican Ambassador as

President of the Security Council during the month of June handle this

dispute? This was a serious issue facing Ambassador Heller as he began

his presidency in June 2010.

Ambassador Heller adopted what he referred to as a “balanced”

approach to treat both governments on the Korean peninsula in a fair and

objective manner. He held bilateral meetings with each member of the

Security Council which led to support for a process of informal presenta-

tions by both of the Koreas to the members of the Security Council. He

arranged for the South Korean Ambassador to make an informal presenta-

tion to the members of the Security Council. Ambassador Heller also

invited the North Korean Ambassador to make a separate informal

presentation to the members of the Security Council. Sin Son Ho was then

the UN Ambassador from North Korea.

In response to the invitation from the President of the Security

Page 83

Council, the North Korean Ambassador to the UN sent a letter dated June

8 to the Security Council, which denied the allegation that his country was

to blame (United Nations Security Council, 2010b). His letter urged the

Security Council not to be the victim of deceptive claims, as had happened

with Iraq in 2003. It asked the Security Council to support his govern-

ment’s call to be able to examine the evidence and to be involved in a new

and more independent investigation of the sinking of the Cheonan.

In its June 8 letter to the Security Council, North Korea referred to the

widespread international sentiment questioning the conclusions of the

South Korean government’s investigation. The North Korean Ambassador

to the UN wrote: “It would be very useful to remind ourselves of the

ever-increasing international doubts and criticisms, going beyond the

internal boundary of south Korea, over the ‘investigation result’ from the

very moment of its release….”

What Ambassador Heller called “interactive informal meetings” were

held on June 14 with the South Koreans and the North Koreans in separate

sessions attended by the Security Council members, who had time to ask

questions and then to discuss the presentations. At a media stakeout on

June 14, after the day’s presentations ended, Ambassador Heller said that

it was important to have received the detailed presentation by South Korea

and also to know and learn the arguments of North Korea.

He commented

that “it was very important that North Korea approached the Security

Council.” In response to a question about his view on the issues presented,

he replied, “I am not a judge. I think we will go on with the consultations

to deal in a proper manner on the issue.” Ambassador Heller also

explained that, “the Security Council issued a call to the parties to refrain

from any act that could escalate tensions in the region, and makes an

appeal to preserve peace and stability in the region.”

Though at the time, it was rare for the North Korean Ambassador to

the UN to hold press briefings, the North Korean UN delegation scheduled

a press conference for Tuesday, June 15, the day following the interactive

informal meeting. During the press conference, the North Korean

Ambassador presented his government’s refutation of the allegations made

by South Korea.

Also he explained North Korea’s request to be able to

send an investigation team to the site where the sinking of the Cheonan

Page 84

occurred. South Korea had denied the request. During its press conference,

the North Korean Ambassador said that there was widespread condemna-

tion of the South Korean government’s investigation in both South Korea

and around the world. The press conference held on June 15 was a lively

event. Many of the journalists who attended were impressed and requested

that there be future press conferences with the North Korean Ambassador.

During his presidency of the Security Council in the month of June,

Ambassador Heller held meetings with the UN ambassadors from each of

the two Koreas and then with Security Council members about the

Cheonan issue. On the last day of his presidency, on June 30, he was asked

by the media what was happening about the Cheonan dispute. Ambassador

Heller responded that the issue of contention was over the evaluation of

the South Korean government’s investigation. Ambassador Heller

described how he introduced what he refers to as “an innovation” into the

Security Council process. As the month of June ended, the issue was not

yet resolved, but the “innovation” set a basis to build on the progress that

was achieved during the month of his presidency.

The “innovation” Ambassador Heller referred to, was a summary he

made of the positions of each of the two Koreas on the issue, taking care

to present each objectively. Heller explained that this summary was not an

official document, so it did not have to be approved by the other members

of the Council. This summary provided the basis for further negotiations.

He believed that it had a positive impact on the process of consideration

in the Council, making possible the agreement that was later to be

expressed in the Presidential statement on the Cheonan that was issued by

the Security Council on July 9 (United Nations Security Council, 2010c).

His goal, Ambassador explained, was to “at all times be as objective as

possible” so as to avoid increasing the conflict on the Korean peninsula.

Such a goal was consistent with the Security Council’s obligation under

the UN Charter.

In the Security Council’s Presidential Statement (PRST) on the

Cheonan, what stands out is that the statement follows the pattern of

presenting the views of each of the two Koreas and urging that the dispute

be settled in a peaceful manner (United Nations Security Council, 2010c).

In the PRST, the members of the Security Council did not blame North

Page 85

Korea. Instead they refer to the South Korean investigation and its

conclusion, expressing their “deep concern” about the “findings” of the

investigation. The PRST explains that “The Security Council takes note

of the responses from other relevant parties, including the DPRK, which

has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.” With the exception

of North Korea, it is not indicated who “the other relevant parties” are. It

does suggest, however, that it is likely there are some Security Council

members, not just Russia and China, who did not agree with the conclu-

sions of the South Korean investigation.

Analyzing the Presidential Statement, the Korean newspaper

Hankyoreh noted that the statement “allows for a double interpretation and

does not blame or place consequences on North Korea.”(Lee, J., 2010)

Such a possibility of a “double interpretation” allows for different

interpretations.

The Security Council action on the Cheonan incident took place in a

situation where there had been a wide ranging international critique,

especially in the online media, about the problems of the South Korean

investigation, and of the South Korean government’s failure to make

public any substantial documentation of its investigation, along with its

practice of harassing critics of the South Korean government claims. The

Security Council action included hearing the positions of the different

parties to the conflict. The result of such efforts is something that is

unusual in the process of recent Security Council activity. The Security

Council process in the Cheonan incident provided for an impartial analysis

of the problem and an effort to hear from those with an interest in the

issue.

The effort in the Security Council was described by the Mexican

Ambassador, as upholding the principles of impartiality and respectful

treatment of all members toward resolving a conflict between nations in

a peaceful manner. It represents an important example of the Security

Council acting in conformity with its obligations as set out in the UN

Charter.

In the July 9 Presidential Statement, the Security Council urged that

the parties to the dispute over the sinking of the Cheonan find a means to

peacefully settle the dispute. The statement says:

Page 86

The Security Council calls for full adherence to the Korean

Armistice Agreement and encourages the settlement of outstand-

ing issues on the Korean peninsula by peaceful means to resume

direct dialogue and negotiation through appropriate channels as

early as possible, with a view to avoiding conflicts and averting

escalation.

The mainstream U.S. media for the most part, chose to ignore the

many critiques which have appeared. These critiques of the South Korean

government’s investigation of the Cheonan sinking have appeared mainly

on the Internet, not only in Korean, but also in English, in Japanese, and

in other languages. An article in the Los Angeles Times on July 23 noted

the fact, however, that the media in the U.S. had ignored the critique of the

South Korean government investigation that was being discussed online

and spread around the world (Demick & Glionna, 2010).

In this case, the netizen community in South Korea and internation-

ally were able to provide an effective challenge to what they believed to

be the misrepresentations by the South Korean government on the

Cheonan incident.

In his article “Social Sciences and the Social Development Process in

Africa,” Charly Gabriel Mbock (2001) proposes that there is a need for

netizens in different countries to work together across national borders to

solve the problems of our times. Perhaps the response of netizens to the

problems raised by the investigation of the Cheonan incident is but a

prelude to the realization of this potential.

XI – Conclusion

Much of the research about journalism is concerned with the elements

of creating and spreading a narrative, with concepts like “framing,”

“agenda setting” and “news diffusion” providing a means to analyze and

understand the processes that are components of the news process. For

example, if the framing of a news story relies on officials of the govern-

ment or of powerful corporations, the story is likely to be significantly

different from where the framing focuses on the perspective of the victim

of some abuse by government or corporate entities. Similarly, students or

workers are likely to have a different perspective of a conflict from that of

Page 87

an investment banker or real estate tycoon. The broad range of online

posts about the Cheonan incident provided a diversity of information and

views that enriches the news environment. (Touri, 2009, 177)

In South Korea, there is ready access to posting on the Internet and

responding to others views. (Im, et al., 2011, 606-607). In the Cheonan

incident, netizens were active offering their critiques of the summary

report the government released. (Kim, 2011, 101) A blogger with a

background in reading blueprints made his views known about the

illegitimacy of the claims by the South Korean government that the part

of the torpedo they produced and the diagram they presented to demon-

strate the torpedo’s North Korean origins were from the same torpedo.

(Creighton, 2010a)

With academic scientists evaluating the South Korean government’s

scientific claims and finding them faulty, (Lee & Suh, 2010; Cyranoski,

2010) with NGO’s studying the investigation claims and writing analyses

which they then send to the UN Security Council members by e-mail,

these are the signs that there is an important process at play.

What had formerly been a process with static components is being

transformed into a process where the components are now dynamic and

changing. (Im et al: 608-609)

Traditionally the news event is framed by the journalist and his or her

editor. That narrative is then spread by the news channels of that media.

The narrative was traditionally static. When the Internet and the netizens

are part of the news process, this is no longer the case. (Zhou and Moy,

2007:82-83; Im et al.: 608-609) And the growing power and capability of

communication processes and of how the news is reported and dissemi-

nated (diffused) has an effect on how policy is created and how it is

implemented. (Gilboa, 202: 736-7,743; Touri, 2009: 174)

Those responsible for making policy can be influenced by the news,

by distortions spread as the news or by a more accurate framing of the

news which the net and netizens at times can make possible.

If it is clear that there are conflicting narratives at the roots of a

conflict, the effort to determine the accurate narrative can help lead to a

resolution or at least a calming of the conflict.

The widespread discussion of diverse views of the Cheonan conflict

Page 88

helped to support the effort by Ambassador Heller to realize that he wasn’t

to act as a judge, but he would try to determine an understanding of the

conflict, of the issues that were in contention. The widespread public

discussion in this situation helped to clarify the issues and what was in

contention, and hence led to a policy at the Security Council of hearing all

sides of the issue, much as the member states of the UN had urged Ban

Ki-moon to do when he was being welcomed to the UN.

In this case study of the Cheonan incident, my earlier question of

whether it was possible for South Korean netizens to have an impact on

what happened at the UN was answered in the affirmative. And the South

Korean netizens were supported by other netizens from around the world.

This is an important example of the UN, of the Security Council, function-

ing in a way to help to calm a conflict. And the widespread public

discussion online of the conflict was, I argue, a helpful support for this

process.

References

Creighton, Scott (2010a, May 24). “The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are

Being Lied To.” (American Everyman blog). Retrieved from

http://

willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-

cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/

Creighton, Scott (2010b, June 20). “PCC-772 Cheonan: South Korean

Government Admits the Deception (and then Lies About It).”

(American Everyman blog). Retrieved from: http://willyloman.

wordpress.com/2010/06/30/pcc-772cheonan-south-korean-govern-

ment-admits-the-deceptionand-then-lies-about-it/

Cyranoski, David (2010, July 8). “Controversy over South Korea’s sunken

ship.” Nature. 10 (1038) Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/

news/2010/100708/full/news.201 0.343.html.

Demick, Barbara, & Glionna, John M. (2010, July 23). “Doubts Surface

on North Korean Role in Ship Sinking.” Los Angeles Times. Re-

trieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/23/world/la-fg-

korea-torpedo-20100724.

Page 89

Frank, Rüdiger, Hoare, James E., Köllner, Patrick, & Pares, Susan, editors

(2007). Korea Yearbook (2007): Politics, Economy and Society.

Berlin: Brill.

Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy. Journal of

Communication, 52(4), 731-748.

Guerrero, Maurizio (2010, July5). “Heller mediacionde Mexico en conflict

de Peninsula de Corea.” La Economia (Notimex). Retrieved from:

http://enlaeconomia.com/news/2010/ 07/05/69561

Hankyoreh (2010a, July 27). “Russia’s Cheonan investigation suspects

that the sinking Cheonan ship was caused by a mine in water.”

(modified July 28). Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/

english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html

Hankyoreh (2010b, July 27). “Russian Navy Expert Team’s analysis on

the Cheonan incident.” (modified July 29) Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432230.html

Hauben, Michael (1997a). “The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net has

on People’s Lives.” In Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet. Michael Hauben & Ronda Hauben. Los Alamitos,

CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Michael (1997b). “The Effect of the Net on the Professional

News Media: The Usenet News Collective – The Man-Computer

News Symbiosis.” In Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet. Michael Hauben & Ronda Hauben. Los Alamitos,

CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Ronda (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A case study of

netizens’ impact on democracy in South Korea.” Retrieved from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh 120/other/misc/korean-democracy.txt

Hauben, Ronda (2006a, Oct 17). “The New Dynamics of Democratization

in South Korea: The Internet and the Emergence of the Netizen.”

OhmyNews. Retrieved from: http://english.ohmynews.com/article

view/article_view.asp?no=323351&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2006b). “The Problem Facing the U.N.: Can Ban

Ki-moon help solve the problem with the Security Council?”

Retrieved from:

http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/articles/paper

Page 90

draft.txt

Hauben, Ronda (2007a). “Online Grassroots Journalism and Participatory

Democracy in South Korea.” In Korea Yearbook (2007): Politics,

Economy and Society. Rüdiger Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick

Köllner and Susan Pares (editors). Berlin: Brill.

Hauben, Ronda (2007b). “North Korea’s $25 Million and Banco Delta

Asia: Another abuse under the U.S. Patriot Act (2001).” OhmyNews.

M a r c h 2 1 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m :

h t t p : / / e n g l i s h . o h m y n e w s . c o m / A r t i c l e V i e w /

article_view.asp?no=351525&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2007c, May 19). “Behind the Blacklisting of Banco Delta

Asia: Is the policy aimed at targeting China as well as North Korea?”

OhmyNews. Retrieved from: http://english.ohmynews.com/article

view/article_view .asp?no=362192&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2010a, June 8). “Netizens Question Cause of Cheonan

Tragedy,” OhmyNews. Retrieved from: http://english.ohmynews.com/

articleview/article_view .a sp?no=386108&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2010b. Sept 5). “In Cheonan Dispute UN Security

Council Acts in Accord with UN Charter.” Retrieved from:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/09/05/in_cheonan_dispute_

un_security_council_discovers_ un_charter/

Hauben, Ronda (2010c, June 29). “Questioning Cheonan Investigation

Stirs Controversy South Korean Government Threatens to Penalize

NGO for Utilizing UN Security Council Procedure.” OhmyNews.

Retrieved from: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_

sangview.asp?no= 386133&rel_no=1

Hauben, Michael, & Hauben, Ronda (1997). Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Com-

puter Society Press.

Im, Y. H., Kim, E. M., Kim, K., & Kim, Y. (2011). “The emerging media-

scape, same old theories? A case study of online news diffusion in

Korea.” New Media & Society, 13(4), 605-625.

Kim, Yeran, Jeong, Irkwon, Khang, Hyoungkoo, & Kim, Bomi (2011,

Nov.). “Blogging as ‘Recoding’: A Case Study of the Discursive War

Page 91

Over the Sinking of the Cheonan.” Media International Australia.

141: 98-106.

Lee, Jae-hoon (2010, July10). “Presidential Statement allows for a ‘double

interpretation’, and does not blame or place consequences upon North

Korea.” Hankyoreh. Retrieved from:

www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_

edition/ e_national/ 4297 68.html

Lee, S., & Suh, J. J. (2010). Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies In South

Korea’s Cheonan Report. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 12. Retrieved

from: http://apjjf.org/-JJ-Suh/3382/ article. html

Lee, Yong-inn(2010, July3). “Questions linger 100 days after the Cheonan

sinking.”Hankyoreh. Retrieved from: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/

english_ edition/e_national/428715.html

Mbock, Charly Gabriel (2001, June). “Social Sciences and the Social

Development Process in Africa.” Social Sciences and Innovation.

OECD: 157-171

Touri, M. (2009, March). News blogs: strengthening democracy through

conflict prevention. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.

170-184). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

United Nations Security Council (2010a, June 4). “Letter dated 4 June,

2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to

the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Coun-

cil.” S/2010/281. Retrieved from: http://www.securitycouncilreport.

org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF

9%7D/DPRK%20S% 202010%20281%20SKorea%20Letter%20and

%20Cheonan%20Report.pdf

United Nations Security Council (2010b, June 8). “Letter dated 8 June,

2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President

of the Security Council.” S/2010/294. Retrieved: http://www.security

councilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20S%202010%20294.pdf

United Nations Security Council (2010c, July 9). “Statement by the

President of the Security Council.” S/PRST/2010/13. Retrieved from:

h t t p : / / w w w . s e c u r i t y c o u n c i l r e p o r t . o r g / a t f /

cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKor

Page 92

ea%20SPRST%202010%2013.pdf

Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). “Parsing framing processes: The interplay

between online public opinion and media coverage.” Journal of

Communication, 57(1), 79-98.

Notes:

1. About letters to UN Security Council, records at the UN show that the practice of

sending such correspondence to the Security Council dates back to 1946. This is the date

when the symbol S/NC/ was introduced as the symbol for “Communications received

from private individuals and non-governmental bodies relating to matters of which the

Security Council is seized.” The Security Council has the practice of periodically

publishing a list of the documents it receives, the name and organization of the sender,

and the date they are received. The Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security

Council states that the list is to be circulated to all representatives on the Security Council.

A copy of any communication on the list is to be given to any nation on the Security

Council that requests it. There are over 450 such lists indicated in the UN records. As

each list can contain several or a large number of documents the Security Council has

received, the number of such documents is likely to be in the thousands. Under Rule 39

of the Council procedures, the Security Council may invite any person it deems

competent for the purpose to supply it with information on a given subject. Thus the two

procedures in the Security Council’s provisional rules give it the basis to find assistance

on issues it is considering from others outside the Council and to consider the contribution

as part of its deliberation.

2. PSPD Report that was Sent to Security Council was posted online in three parts:

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584228

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584287

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584296

3. The press conference was held on July 9 at the Tokyo Foreign Correspondents Club.

The program was titled “Lee and Suh: Inconsistencies in the Cheonan Report”.

http://www.japantimes. co.jp/news/2010/07/10/news/scholars-doubt-cheonan-finding/

#.WX973SmQwdc. See also, (Cyranoski, 2010), (Lee, S., & Suh, J. J. 2010).

4. The Russian team proposed a different theory for how the Cheonan sank. They had

observed that the ship’s propeller had become entangled in a fishing net and subsequently

that a possible cause of the sinking could have been that the ship had hit the antennae of

a mine which then exploded. “Russian Navy Team’s Analysis of the Cheonan Incident,”

(Hankyoreh, 2010b). The Russian Experts document is titled “Data from the Russian

Naval Expert Group’s Investigation into the Cause of the South Korean Naval Vessel

Cheonan’s Sinking.” See also “Russia’s Cheonan Investigation Suspects that Sinking

Cheonan Ship was Caused by a Mine,” (Hankyoreh, 2010a).

Page 93

5. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by the President of the Security

Council and the Permanent Representative of Mexico, H. E. Mr. Claude Heller on the

Cheonan incident (the sinking of the ship from the Republic of Korea) and on Kyrgyzstan.

[Webcast: Archived Video – 5 minutes]

http://web

6 . V i d e o o f N o r t h K o r e a n A mb a ss a d o r P r e s s Co n f e r e n c e :

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ pressconference/ 2010/pc100615am.rm

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on July 9, 2003 on Telepolis at:

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/ Doing-Democracy-3430319.html]

Doing Democracy

Reflections on the 10 Year Anniversary of the

Publication of “The Net and Netizens”

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

This is a period marked by serious political dissatisfaction around the

world. There is the promise of democratic societies, but the promise too

often is far removed from the reality of people ‘s lives. Yet there is the

widespread yearning for a better world, for a society where democracy is

practiced, not merely pretended. In this situation the question is raised:

“What does democracy look like? How does it function? Are there any

operational models to observe and learn from?”

Fortunately, there is a model to be examined, a practice to be

investigated. Ten years ago, on July 6, 1993, a student, Michael Hauben,

posted a paper on the Net. The title of the paper was “Common Sense: The

Net and Netizens.” The first sentences were:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (Net Citizen),

and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net gives you. You consider everyone as

your compatriot. You physically live in one country but you are

in contact with much of the world via the global computer

network. Virtually you live next door to every other single

netizen in the world. Geographical separation is replaced by

Page 94

existence in the same virtual space.

It was a long paper so it was posted in three separate parts: Preface,

Paper.

Appendix.

st.un.org/ ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2010/ so100614pm3.rm

The paper introduced a concept, which has since spread around the

world, both online and off (see also Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet

). This concept can provide a practical

operational framework to explore a model for democracy. Describing how

he hoped to focus the paper, Hauben wrote:

The Net and Netizens: A Revitalization of People Power, a

Strengthening of People Power. Bottom Up is the Principle of

this paper.

The interesting aspect of “The Net and Netizens” is that it identifies

and describes the important role of the online user in creating the new

social treasure that had come to be known as the Net. The net.citizen, or

netizen, as Hauben writes, was the active agent in creating something new,

the democratic online content and form of the 1993 network of networks.

The netizen contributed information and viewpoints that made it possible

to consider an issue or problem and come to a reasoned judgment or

decision. Netizens would help other netizens if they deemed it worthwhile.

The initiative that was being developed was from the netizens

themselves. Examples included a mailing list by a person in Ireland

summarizing the weekly news and sending it out to over 1000 people

around the world who wanted to stay current with Irish news; Usenet

newsgroups like misc.news. southasia and soc.culture.india which made

it possible for people from an area to continue contact with what was

happening; a mailing list to watch the prices of gas in California to warn

against price gouging. There were many other examples that Hauben

provided which he had learned from his research online.

The key aspect, however, of this new form of democracy, was that the

previously disenfranchised reader could now broadcast to others around

the world news and views from a grassroots perspective. Previously, there

had been central control of the mass media. Now the participant himself

or herself, could provide information to the online world about an event

or an area of knowledge. Netizens also had the ability to be citizen

reporters, to offer a more wide ranging set of view points and perspectives

Page 95

on issues or problems, a broader basis from which to form one’s own

opinion, than hitherto had been possible.

Netizens could meet online, discuss issues and problems, and from the

process decide on the goal or direction to pursue. Hauben saw this process

as a way of revitalizing society, as a way that those previously disenfran-

chised could gain power over both their society and over their personal

lives.

In this operating model of democracy, there were no elections or

representatives. Rather this embryo of democracy was focused on the

active participation and contributions of the many in a manner not hitherto

possible. Hauben described some of the broad ranging ages and occupa-

tions of the more than 10 million computer users who, by 1993, were

connected around the world. At the time the computer networking

connections were made possible by gateways between different networks,

like the scientific and educational Internet, the academic BITNET, the

technical research Unix UUCP and Usenet network, the Cleveland Freenet

for community people, and other networks.

While the netizen was an active contributor to the developing social

treasure, Hauben realized the need to make it possible for everyone to

have access to this new communication paradigm to realize its potential.

He writes:

This complete connection of the body of citizens of the world

does not exist as of today, and it will definitely be a fight to make

access to the Net open and available to all. However, in the

future we might be seeing the possible expansion of what it

means to be a social animal. Practically every single individual

on the Net today is available to every other person on the Net….

International connection coexists on the same level with local

connection. Also the computer networks allow a more advanced

connection between the people who are communicating.

Although the path was difficult, Hauben also appreciated the

importance of the goal. He writes:

Despite the problems, for people of the world, the Net provides

a powerful way of peaceful assembly. Peaceful Assembly allows

for people to take control over their lives, rather than control

Page 96

being in the hands of others. This power has to be honored and

protected. Any medium or tool that helps people to hold or gain

power is something special and has to be protected.

The focus of democracy, as described in “The Net and Netizens,” is

on the people themselves, and on their ability and achievements in

determining the nature and development of their society. It is on support

for the ever increasing contributions of more of the populace in the

process.

Notes:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/

2. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense1.txt

3. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense2.txt

4. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense3.txt

5. Hauben, M., R. Hauben. (1997). Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and

the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in

an earlier draft version,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared in the Korean Herald on

July 18, 2007 and can be seen at:

http://web.international.ucla.edu/asia/

article/74171.]

Page 97

Netizens Celebrate a Decade of

Activism: Michael Hauben’s Legacy

Lives On, Ten Years After the Release of

the Book Netizen

by Claire George

On a sunny afternoon last weekend in Manhattan a group of

well-wishers met to celebrate the 10

Anniversary of the print edition of

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by the late

Michael Hauben and his mother and coauthor, Ronda Hauben.

Netizens, which first appeared online in January 1994 was one of the

earliest books to examine the development of the internet as a social

network. In it, Michael Hauben expressed his hope for the internet’s use

as an aid to global human cooperation.

At Saturday’s gathering Michael’s father Jay told listeners: “The

lesson for me is to learn from Michael to have confidence in the wonders

the net can produce. Whenever I read some chapter in ‘Netizens,’ I always

have the same sensation. I want to participate more on the net. I still want

to be a netizen.” [See next article in this issue.]

Michael Hauben invented the term netizen by combining the words

citizen and internet. He defined citizens of the net as people who,

“understand the value of collective work and the communal aspects of

public communications. These are the people who discuss and debate

topics in a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide

help to new-comers, who maintain public information repositories. They

are not people who exploit the web for their own personal gain.”

The new word spread across the world and is now in common use in

English, Korean, Japanese, Italian and other languages. Michael Hauben

died in June 2001 at the age of 28 from injuries sustained in a car accident

in 1999. But his legacy lives on in an idea that has become an inspiration

for people who believe that the internet is a force for good.

Speaking to The Korea Herald from her home in New York, Ronda

Hauben expressed her “delight” in the achievements of Korean netizens.

Page 98

She says that Koreans should be proud of the role played by“netizen

scientists” in the affair of the stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk and

cites Korea’s contribution to the development of citizen journalism as

being of particular importance.

“There are conservative forces in the U.S. trying to create another

attack on the United Nations like the scandal they created around supposed

corruption in the U.N. in the ‘oil for food program.’ I haven’t seen this

challenged in the U.S. press, but it was challenged by netizens in Korea,”

she said.

“There are many similar examples,” Hauben continued, “I can only

read English accounts of what is happening, but even so when I look I see

valuable examples of netizen activity.”

In her own life as a netizen journalist and featured writer for

OhMyNews International Ronda Hauben covers the U.N. and U.N. related

developments. She believes that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

needs press coverage like that provided by progressive netizens in order

to operate effectively.

“If only the conservative press such as the Wall Street Journal and

Fox News and so on, didn’t focus so much on supposed scandals that

aren’t scandals, then he would not be trapped into responding to things

that are being made into issues but aren’t the real issues,” she said.

[Editor’s Note: The following was read on May 1, 2007 at a small

gathering to mark the 10

Anniversary of the print edition of the book

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet written by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben in the early 1990s and published in

1997. A version of that book is online at:

Page 99

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/]

Welcome to the 21

Century and to the

Wonderful World of the Net

by Jay Hauben

[email protected]

Ten years ago on July 14, 1997, 40 people gathered in a bookstore

near Columbia University in NYC to help launch the hard cover edition

of the book, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet. They came to a book reading party with the authors, Michael and

Ronda and a representative of the IEEE Computer Society Press, the

publisher.

The amazing thing they heard and to which some there objected was

how solid was the democratic foundation of the newly emerging Internet

and how pervasive might be the changes facilitated by the Net. Michael

had written of his vision of a 21

Century where each netizen could be an

active global citizen thanks to the connectivity the net makes possible. He

saw that a large part of the necessary infrastructure was in place and a

more democratic world is becoming possible. He read from his chapter

Exploring NYC’s online Community: A Snapshot of NYC.general. The

reading stimulated a vigorous and contentious discussion with some

welcoming the Internet and others disbelieving that the net would be a

positive force for greater democracy.

Now we are here today ten years later. Perhaps the discussion can

continue as we look again at the concept of and the book Netizens. Ronda

and Michael gathered in the book solid historical evidence and contempo-

rary practice for their thesis that something big was happening which

would take a mighty fight to defend but which could profoundly change

the media, politics, social life and even economics. Big things have

happened: e-mail, World Wide Web, citizen journalism, Google searches

and blogging to name a few. But except for e-mail and citizen journalism

these were only the lessor part of what Michael foresaw. He was envision-

ing more profound human to human communication and intense discus-

Page 100

sions like those on Usenet. I wonder when more of Michael’s vision will

come.

My guess is that it might not be necessary to wait a few generations

for more new big changes. Maybe they are beginning to happen and we

don’t see them. The cartoon at the beginning of Netizens shows what we

are looking for might be so big we might not be looking in the right way

to see it.

There is in the U.S. an election next year, 2008. In the last election the

big surprise was Howard Dean and 400,000 “Deaniacs.” What might the

surprise be next year? Also, Ronda has worked to see an OhmyNews in the

U.S. Might that ever happen?

I think the lesson for me is to learn from Michael to have confidence

in the wonders the net can produce despite the hard fight they will take.

Whenever I read some chapter in Netizens, I always have the same

sensation. I want to participate more on the net. I still want to be a netizen.

Welcome to the 21

Century and to the wonderful world of the net.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not neces-

sarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome

submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 101

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

[email protected]

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a non profit publication

provided credit is given, with name of author and source of article cited.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 102