The Amateur
Computerist
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Fall 2019
The Net, Netizens and Netizenship Volume 32 No. 2
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 1
Researching the “Net” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
Significance of the Net and the Netizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12
Michael Hauben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26
Netizens and the Vision for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35
Culture and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42
Emerging New Form of Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55
Experiences at 6
th
World Internet Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 57
Rise of Social Media in the Philippines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 61
Introduction
This issue of the Amateur Computerist includes articles written over
a spread of 26 years. Michael Hauben wrote his article “The Net and
Netizens: The Impact the Net Has on People’s Lives” in 1992-3 and
posted an early draft online on June 10, 1993. Based on this article,
Michael gave a talk in 1994 to the students and faculty in the student
ACM chapter at Columbia University. That talk is featured as the first
article in this issue. Michael’s article was posted originally in 1993. It was
then published in the print edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet in May 1997. And, since 1994, there have been
numerous books and articles quoting from Michael’s article.
Other articles in this issue include the Wikipedia entry for “Michael
Page 1
Hauben” (p. 13) and his analysis of “The Impact of the Internet on the
Emerging Global Culture” (p. 21). There are two articles by Ronda
Hauben about the Significance of the Net and the Netizen and about a
Vision for the Future of the Net shown by the 2008 Candlelight demon-
strations in South Korea. The issue concludes with a summary of
experiences at the 6
th
World Internet Conference in China and then an
analysis of culture and social media in the Philippines.
Also in this issue is the text of a short talk Ronda Hauben was invited
to present at the 6
th
World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China.
Ronda’s talk, “The Netizen as the Emerging New Form of Citizenship,”
was presented as part of the Cyberculture and Youth sub forum held on
Oct. 21, 2019. In her talk Ronda quoted from a journal article written to
discuss efforts by Turkish netizens to encourage friendship between the
Greek and Turkish people using Facebook posts. In the journal article, the
Turkish scholars quote from Michael’s article, the “The Net and the
Netizens...” as a description of what these efforts toward Greek -Turkish
people’s friendship represent. Quoting Michael, the Turkish authors of the
paper write that a Netizen (net citizen) exists “as a citizen of the world
thanks to the global connectivity that the Net makes possible.”
In 1993, Michael noted he was making “only a prediction of the
future.” But this prediction has, in many ways, now become the present
reality for netizens around the world as it has for Turkish and Greek
netizens. This demonstrates that Michael’s netizen discovery was an
important scientific discovery that gave a name and recognition to a
phenomena that at the time was only coming into being.
The recognition of the importance of the netizen phenomena has
intermittently received prominent acknowledgment. And, still 26 years
later it was presented at the Cyberculture and Youth sub forum at the 6
th
World Internet Conference. The 140 Chinese and international attendees
heard how “The Netizen is the Emerging New Form of Citizenship” as a
contribution to the vision for the future made possible not only by the Net
but also by the Netizen.
Page 2
[Editor’s Note: The following is a speech given to the Columbia Uni-
versity Student ACM Chapter on April 24, 1994. It was based on a pa-
per titled “The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People’s
Lives,” available now as Chapter 1 of the netbook “The Netizens and
the Wonderful World of the Net: An Anthology” at: http://www.colum
bia.edu/~hauben /project_book.html, and as Chapter 1 in the print edi-
tion, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet,
IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.]
Researching the “Net”
A Talk on The Evolution of Usenet News
and The Significance of the
Global Computer Network
by Michael Hauben
I – You Are a Netizen or a Net Citizen
Welcome to the 21
st
Century. You are a Netizen, or a Net Citi-
zen, and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global connec-
tivity that the Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your com-
patriot. 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 sep-
aration is replaced by existence in the same virtual space.
The situation I describe is only a prediction of the future, but a
large part of the necessary infrastructure currently exists. The Net – or
the Internet, BITNET, FIDOnet, other physical networks, Usenet,
VMSnet, and other logical networks and so on – has rapidly grown to
cover all of the developed countries in the world. Every day more com-
puters attach to the existing networks and every new computer adds to
the user base – at least twenty five million people are interconnected
today. Why do all these people pass their time sitting in front of a com-
puter typing away? They have very good reason to! Twenty five million
people plus [in 1994] have very good reason not to be wrong.
Page 3
[Twenty-five years later, in 2019, there were 4.3 billion active internet
users.]
We are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks are
being redesigned from the bottom up. A new more democratic world is
becoming possible. According to one user, the Net has “immeasurably
increased the quality of…life.” The Net seems to open a new lease on
life for people. Social connections which were never before possible, or
which were relatively hard to achieve, are now facilitated by the Net.
Geography and time no longer are boundaries. Social limitations and
conventions no longer prevent potential friendships or partnerships. In
this manner Netizens are meeting other Netizens from far-away and
close by that they might never have met without the Net.
A new world of connections between people – either privately
from individual to individual or publicly from individuals to the collec-
tive mass of many on the net – is possible. The old model of central
distribution of information from the Network Broadcasting or Publica-
tion 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 com-
puter networks form a new grassroots connection that allows the ex-
cluded sections of society to have a voice. This new medium is unprec-
edented. 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 net-
working – of making connections with strangers that prove to be advan-
tageous to one or both parties.
The complete connection of the body of citizens of the world
that the Net makes possible does not exist as of today, and it will defi-
nitely 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. Interna-
tional connection coexists on the same level with local connection. Also
the computer networks allow a more advanced connection between the
Page 4
people who are communicating. With computer-communication sys-
tems, information or thoughts are connected to people’s names and
electronic-mail addresses. On the Net, one can connect to others who
have similar interests or whose thought processes they enjoy.
Netizens make it a point to be helpful and friendly – if they feel
it to be worthwhile. Many Netizens feel they have an obligation to be
helpful and answer queries and follow-up on discussions to put their
opinion into the pot of opinions. Over a period of time the voluntary
contributions to the Net have built it into a useful connection to other
people around the world. The Net can be a helpful medium to under-
stand the world. Only by seeing all points of view can any one person
attempt to figure out either their own position on a topic or in the end,
the truth.
Net Society differs from off-line society by welcoming intellec-
tual activity. People are encouraged to have things on their mind and to
present those ideas to the Net. People are allowed to be intellectually
interesting and interested. This intellectual activity forms a major part
of the on-line information that is carried by the various computer net-
works. Netizens can interact with other people to help add to or alter
that information. Brain-storming between varieties of people produces
robust thinking. Information is no longer a fixed commodity or resource
on the Nets. It is constantly being added to and improved collectively.
The Net is a grand intellectual and social commune in the spirit of the
collective nature present at the origins of human society. Netizens
working together continually expand the store of information world-
wide. One person called the Net an untapped resource because it pro-
vides an alternative to the normal channels and ways of doing things.
The Net allows for the meeting of minds to form and develop ideas. It
brings people’s thinking processes out of isolation and into the open.
Every user of the Net gains the role of being special and useful. The
fact that every user has his or her own opinions and interests adds to the
general body of specialized knowledge on the Net. Each Netizen thus
becomes a special resource valuable to the Net. Each user contributes to
the whole intellectual and social value and possibilities of the Net.
Page 5
II – Licklider, the Visionary
The world of the Netizen was envisioned some twenty five-
years ago [now over 50] by J.C.R. Licklider and Robert Taylor in their
article “The Computer as a Communication Device” (Science and Tech-
nology, April 1968). Licklider brought to his leadership of the U.S. De-
partment of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) a
vision of “the intergalactic computer network.” Whenever he would
speak of ARPA, he would mention this vision. J.C.R. Licklider was a
prophet of the Net. In his article Licklider establishes several helpful
principles which would make the computer play a helpful role in human
communication. These principles were:
1. Communication is defined as an interactive creative process.
2. Response times need to be short to make the “conversation” free and
easy.
3. The larger network would form out of smaller regional networks.
4. Communities would form out of affinity and common interests.
Licklider focused on the Net comprising of a network of net-
works. While other researchers of the time focused on the sharing of
computing resources, Licklider kept an open mind and wrote:
...The collection of people, hardware, and software – the
multi-access computer together with its local community
of users – will become a node in a geographically dis-
tributed computer network…. Through the network,
therefore, all the large computers can communicate with
one another. And through them, all the members of the
super-community can communicate – with other people,
with programs, with data, or with a selected combina-
tions of those resources.
Licklider’s understandings from his 1968 paper have stood the
test of time, and do represent what the Net is today. His concept of the
sharing of both computing and human resources accurately describes
today’s Net. The networking of various human connections quickly
forms, changes its goals, disbands and reforms into new collaborations.
The fluidity of such group dynamics leads to a quickening of the cre-
ation of new ideas. Groups can form to discuss an idea, focus in or
Page 6
broaden out and reform to fit the new ideas that have resulted from the
process.
The virtual space created on non-commercial computer net-
works is accessible universally. This space is accessible from the con-
nections that exist; whereas social networks in the physical world gen-
erally are connected only by limited gateways. So the capability of net-
working on computer nets overcomes limitations inherent in non-com-
puter social networks. This is important because it reduces the problems
of population growth. Population growth no longer means limited.
Rather that very growth of population now means an improvement of
resources. Thus growth of population can be seen as a positive asset.
This is a new way of looking at people in our society. Every new person
can mean a new set of perspectives and specialties to add to the wealth
of knowledge of the world. This new view of people could help im-
prove the view of the future. The old model looks down on population
growth and people as a strain on the environment rather than the in-
crease of intellectual contribution these individuals can make. However,
access to the Net needs to be universal for the Net to fully utilize the
contribution each person can represent. Once access is limited, the Net
and those on the Net lose the full possible advantages the Net can offer.
Lastly the people on the Net need to be active in order to bring about
the best possible use of the Network.
Licklider foresaw that the Net allows for people of common in-
terests, who are otherwise strangers, to communicate. Much of the
magic of the Net is the ability to make a contribution of your ideas, and
then be connected to utter strangers. He saw that people would connect
to others via this net in ways that had been much harder in the past.
Licklider observed as the ARPANET spanned two continents. This
physical connection allowed for wider social collaborations to form.
This was the beginning of Computer Data networks facilitating connec-
tions of people around the world.
My research on and about the Net has been and continues to be
very exciting for me. When I posted my inquiries, I usually received the
first reply within a couple of hours. The feeling of receiving that very
first reply from a total stranger is always exhilarating! That set of first
replies from people reminds me of the magic of E-Mail. It is nice that
Page 7
there can be reminders of how exciting it all is – so that the value of this
new use of computers is never forgotten.
III – Critical Mass
The Net has grown so much in the last 25 years, that a critical
mass of people and interests has been reached. This collection of indi-
viduals adds to the interests and specialties of the whole community.
Most people can now gain something from the Net, while at the same
time helping it out. A critical mass has developed on the net. Enough
people exist that the whole is now greater than any one individual and
thus makes the Net worthwhile to be part of. People are meshing intel-
lects and knowledge to form new ideas. Larry Press made this clear by
writing:
I now work on the Net at least 2 hours per day. I’ve had
an account since around 1975 but it has only become
super important in the last couple of years because a crit-
ical mass of membership was reached. I no longer work
in LA, but in cyberspace.
Many inhabitants of the Net feel that only the most technically
inclined people use the Net. This is not true, as many different kinds of
people are now connected to the Net. While the original users of the
Net were from exclusively technical and scientific communities, many
of them found it a valuable experience to explore the Net for more than
just technical reasons. The nets, in their early days, were only available
in a few parts the world. Now however, people of all ages, from most
parts of the globe, and of many professions, make up the Net. The origi-
nal prototype networks (e.g.: ARPANET in the USA, NPL in the Unit-
ed Kingdom, CYCLADES in France and other networks around the
world) developed the necessary physical infrastructure for a fertile so-
cial network to develop. Einar Stefferud wrote of this social connection
in an article:
The ARPANET has produced several monumental re-
sults. It provided the physical and electrical communica-
tions backbone for development of the latent social
infrastructure we now call ‘The Internet Community.’
(ConneXions, Oct. 1989, Vol. 3 No. 10. p. 21)
Page 8
Many different kinds of people comprise the Net. The Univer-
sity Community sponsors access for a broad range of people (students,
professors, staff, professor emeritus, and so on). Programmers, engi-
neers and researchers from many companies are connected. A K-12 Net
exists within the lower grades of education which helps to invite young
people to be a part of our community. Special Bulletin Board software
(for example Waffle) exists to connect Personal Computer users to the
Net. Various UNIX bulletin board systems exist to connect other users.
It is impossible to tell exactly who connects to public bulletin board
systems, as only an inexpensive computer (or terminal) and modem are
required to connect. Many common bulletin board systems (for exam-
ple, FIDO board) have at least e-mail and many also participate through
a gateway to Netnews. Prototype Community Network Systems are
forming around the world (e.g.: In Cleveland – the Cleveland Freenet,
In New Zealand – the Wellington Citynet, In California – the Santa
Monica Public Electronic Network, etc.) Access via these community
systems can be as easy as visiting the community library and member-
ship is open to all who live in the community.
In addition to the living body of resources this diversity of
Netizens represent, there is also a continually growing body of digitized
data that forms a set of resources. Whether it is Netizens digitizing
great literature of the past (e.g.: the Gutenberg Project), or it is people
gathering otherwise obscure or non-mainstream material (e.g.: Various
Religions, unusual hobbies, fringe and cult materials, and so on), or if it
is Netizens contributing new and original material (e.g.: the Amateur
Computerist Newsletter), the net follows in the great tradition of other
public bottom-up institutions, such as the public library or the principle
behind public education. The Net shares with these institutions that they
serve the general populace. This data is just part of the treasure. Often
living Netizens provide pointers to this digitized store of publicly avail-
able information. Many of the network access tools have been pro-
grammed with the principle of being available to everyone. The best
example is the method of connecting to file repositories via FTP (file
transfer protocol) by logging in as an “anonymous” user. Most (if not
all) World Wide Web Sites, Wide Area Information Systems (WAIS),
and gopher sites are open for all users of the Net. It is true that the cur-
Page 9
rent membership of the Net Community is smaller than it will be, but
the net has reached a point of general usefulness no matter who you are.
All of this evidence is exactly why there could be problems if
the Net comes under the control of commercial entities. Once commer-
cial interests gain control, the Net will be much less powerful for the
ordinary person than it is currently. Commercial interests vary from
those of the common person. They attempt to make profit from any
available means. Compuserve is an example of one current commercial
network. A user of Compuserve pays for access by the minute. If this
scenario would be extended to the Net of which I speak, the Netiquette
of being helpful would have a price tag attached to it. If people had to
pay by the minute during the Net’s development, very few would have
been able to afford the network time needed to be helpful to others.
The Net has only developed because of the hard work and vol-
untary dedication of many people. It has grown because the Net is un-
der the control and power of the people at a bottom-level, and because
these people have over the years made a point to make it something
worthwhile. People’s posts and contributions to the Net have been the
developing forces.
IV – Network as a New Democratic Force
For the 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 that control 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 that is special and has
to be protected. (See “The Computer as Democratizer,” Amateur
Computerist Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 5, Fall 1992)
J.C.R. Licklider believed that access to the then growing infor-
mation network should be made ubiquitous. He felt that the Net’s value
would depend on high connectivity. In his article, “The Computer as a
Communication Device,” Licklider argues that the impact upon society
depends on how available the network is to the society as a whole. He
wrote:
For the society, the impact will be good or bad depend-
ing mainly on the question: Will ‘to be on line’ be a
Page 10
privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the
population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of ‘intel-
ligence amplification,’ the network may exaggerate the
discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity.
The Net has made a valuable impact to human society. I have
heard from many people how their lives have been substantially im-
proved via their connection to the Net. This enhancement of people’s
lives provides the incentive needed for providing access to all in soci-
ety. Society will improve if net access is made available to people as a
whole. Only if access is universal will the Net itself truly advance. The
ubiquitous connection is necessary for the Net to encompass all possi-
ble resources. One Net visionary responded to my research by calling
for universal access. Steve Welch wrote:
If we can get to the point where anyone who gets out of
high school alive 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 under-
standable. When access to information is as ubiquitous
as access to the phone system, all hell will break loose.
Bet on it.
Steve is right, “all hell will break loose” in the most positive of
ways imaginable. The philosophers Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rous-
seau, and all other fighters for democracy would have been proud.
Similar to past communication advances such as the printing
press, mail, and the telephone, the Global Computer Communications
Network has already fundamentally changed our lives. Licklider pre-
dicted that the Net would fundamentally change the way people live
and work. It is important to try to understand this impact, so as to help
further this advance.
Page 11
[Editor’s Note: A version of the following article appeared in Rhetoric
and Communications E-journal, Issue 27, March 2017. That journal can
be seen online at: http://journal.rhetoric.bg/.]
Considerations on the Significance of
the Net and the Netizens*
by Ronda Hauben
Topics: netizens, communication processes, communication channels,
citizen empowerment, models for democracy, nerves of government,
social impact
Abstract
The book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
celebrates in 2017 the 20
th
anniversary of its publication in English and Japanese edi-
tions 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 demon-
strating 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 con-
ceptual 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 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.
Key Words: netizens, communications, empowerment, impact, citizen,
watchdog, democracy
Introduction
With the introduction of the Internet, the question has been rais-
ed 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 develop-
Page 12
ment 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, how-
ever, 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 con-
sider the importance of the Internet and of the Netizen in helping to
forge the new forms for grassroots participation in the governing struc-
tures of society. At such a time it seems appropriate to consider the con-
ceptual 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
th
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 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
th
An-
niversary 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 under-
stand the nature of this advance and the developments the advance
makes possible.
Page 13
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 ex-
plained:
There are people online who actively contribute to the
development of the Net. These people understand the
value of collective work and the communal aspects of
public communications. These are the people who dis-
cuss and debate topics in a constructive manner, who e-
mail answers to people and provide help to newcomers,
who maintain FAQ files and other public information
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
st
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 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.
1
Page 14
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 en-
tity. While there were people online at the time promoting the privatiza-
tion and commercialization of the Internet, the concept of netizen was
embraced by others, many of whom supported the public and collabora-
tive nature of the Internet and who wanted this aspect to grow and
flourish.
The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out of a research pro-
ject that Hauben had done for a class at Columbia University in Com-
puter Ethics. Hauben was interested in the impact of the Net and so he
formulated several questions and sent them out online. This was a pio-
neering project at the time and the results he got back helped to estab-
lish 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 and Netizens” and posted it online. This helped the concept of
Page 15
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 con-
ference in Japan. Subsequently in 1997, his description became the pre-
face to the Netizens book, Hauben explained:
In conducting research five years ago online to deter-
mine people’s uses of the global computer communica-
tions network, I became aware that there was a new so-
cial institution, an electronic commons, developing. It
was exciting to explore this new social institution. Oth-
ers 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.
2
Hauben’s work which is included in the book and the subse-
quent 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 contribu-
tions for a new media would far exceed what the old media had
achieved. “As people continue to connect to Usenet and other discus-
sion forums,” he wrote, “the collective population will contribute back
to the human community this new form of news.”
3
In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s work and of the
publication 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 16
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 consid-
ers 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 govern-
ments. But this was not adequate though the concept of the rights of the
citizen, he recognizes, 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.”
4
He pro-
poses 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.”
5
But with the coming of what he calls the age of globalization,
Poster wonders if the concept “citizen” can continue to signify democ-
racy. 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.”
6
“The deepening of globalization processes strips
the citizen of power,” he writes. “As economic processes become glob-
alized, the nation-state loses its ability to protect its population. The
citizen thereby loses her ability to elect leaders who effectively pursue
her interests.”
7
In this situation, “the figure of the citizen is placed in a defen-
sive position.”
8
To succeed in the struggle against globalization he rec-
ognizes that there is a need to find instead of a defensive position, an
offensive one.
Page 17
Also he is interested in the media and its role in this new para-
digm. “We need to examine the role of the media in globalizing prac-
tices that construct new subjects,” Poster writes. “We need especially to
examine those media that cross national boundaries and to inquire if
they form or may form the basis for a new set of political relations.”
9
In this context, for the new media, “the important questions,
rather, are these:” he proposes, “Can the new media promote the con-
struction 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 en-
hanced by political action?”
10
“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” Poster notices, the
name often given to the political subject constituted on the Net is
“netizen.” While Poster makes it seem that the consciousness among
some online of themselves as “netizens” just appeared online spontane-
ously, this is not accurate.
Before Hauben’s work, netizen as a concept was rarely if ever
referred to. The paper “The Net and Netizens” introduced and devel-
oped the concept of “netizen.” This paper was widely circulated online.
Gradually the use of the concept of netizen became increasingly com-
mon. Hauben’s work was a process of doing research online, summariz-
ing the research, analyzing it while welcoming online comments at var-
ious stages of the process and then putting the research back online, and
of people embracing it. This was the process by which the foundation
for the concept of “netizen” was interactively established.
Considering this background, 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 fig-
ure 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.”
11
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.”
12
Page 18
The Era of the Netizen
Poster characterizes the current times as the age of globaliza-
tion. I want to offer a different view, the view that we are in an era de-
marcated 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 possi-
ble 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 fla-
vor 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 the arti-
cle “The Rise of Netizen Democracy”, the Times of India article said,
“Not only is the Internet a laboratory for democracy, but the scale of
participation and contribution is unprecedented. Online discussion
makes it possible for netizens to become active individuals and group
actors in social and public affairs. The Internet makes it possible for
netizens to speak out independently of institutions or officials.”
13
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 fifth estate?” Kamat
asks, contrasting netizens’ discussion online with the power of the 4th
estate, i.e. the mainstream media.
“Will social and political discussion in social media grow into delibera-
tion?” 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 me-
dia 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.
Page 19
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 be-
fore 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 grass-
roots efforts to create examples of netizen forms for a more participa-
tory government decision making process.
14
But China is also a place
where there are significant developments because of the Internet and
netizens.
15
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.
In looking for other models to learn from, however, I also real-
ized that there is another relevant area of development. This is the ac-
tual process of building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to con-
sider when seeking to understand the nature and particularity of the
evolving new models for development and participation represented in
the Era of the Netizen.
16
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 JCR 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.”
17
The paper proposed that essential to the processes of com-
Page 20
munication 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.
18
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.”
19
I want to focus a bit on the signifi-
cance of this characteristic, on the notion that the Net has opened a
communication channel available to a wide set of people.
In order to have a conceptual framework to understand the im-
portance of this characteristic, I recommend the book by Karl Deutsch
titled, The 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 communi-
cation.
20
To look at the question of government not as a problem of
power, but as one of steering, of communication, I want to propose is a
fundamental paradigm shift.
What is the difference?
Political power has to do with the ability to exert force on some-
thing so as to affect its direction and action. Steering and communica-
tion, 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 transmitted in a manner that distorts the signal or
whether it is possible to transmit the signal accurately. The communica-
tion process and the steering that it makes possible through feedback
Page 21
mechanisms are an underlying framework to consider in seeking to un-
derstand what Deutsch calls the “Nerves of Government.”
According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked at as a self-steer-
ing 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 ex-
posure 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.
21
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 want to
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 infor-
mation 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?”
22
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
“information has to be processed and discussed for it to acquire full
meaning and significance.”
23
“When information is free, available and
truthful, we are better able to make appropriate judgments, including
whether existing governments fulfill their mandate to govern for the
benefit of the people,” Lee writes.
24
In his article “The Computer as a Democratizer,” Hauben simi-
larly 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 in-
cumbents. Therefore, there is a need to prevent government from cen-
soring the information available to people.”
25
Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate information as to
how their representatives are fulfilling their role. Once these representa-
Page 22
tives have abused their power, the principles established by [Thomas
Paine] and [James] Mill require that the public have the ability to re-
place the abusers.”
26
Channels of accurate communication are critical in order to
share the information needed to determine the nature of one’s govern-
ment.
27
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 cre-
ating not only new technical and institutional forms, but also new politi-
cal forms. Such new political forms are more likely to provide for the
democratic processes that are needed for the 21
st
century. Hence it is the
efforts of citizens and netizens who are involved in collaborative mod-
eling to create the more participatory forms and structures as is happen-
ing during the candlelight processes being explored in South Korea that
provide for the development of a more equitable and democratic soci-
ety.
28
References/Citations
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.
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.
Page 23
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/ampnbsp
We-are-looking-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 elect-
ed as President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews, an online newspaper, help-
ed to make the election of Roh Moo-hyun possible. Science mailing lists and discus-
sion 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 candle-
light demonstrations contributed to by people online and off to protest the South Ko-
rean government’s adoption of a weakened set of regulations about the import of poor-
ly 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 off-line 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 web site that was set up to counter the inac-
curate press reports in the western media about the 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 Technol-
ogy.
http://memex.org/licklider. pdf, pp. 21-41. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.
18. The Licklider and Taylor paper also points out that the sharing of models is essen-
tial to facilitate communication. If two people have different models and do not find a
way to share them, there will be no communication between them.
19. IBID., Netizens, p. 299
20. 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
acn/ACn21-1.pdf, Retrieved Jan. 10, 2017 and Hauben, J., (2007), “On the 15
th
Anni-
versary of Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.”
http://www.columbia.edu/ ~hauben/Book_Anniversary /presentation_2.doc, Retrieved
on Jan. 10, 2017.
22. Lee, Z. (2011), “Truthfulness and the Information Revolution,” JPL 31, p. 105.
Page 24
23. IBID., p. 106.
24. IBID., p. 108.
25. IBID., Netizens, p. 316.
26. IBID., Netizens, p. 317.
27. M. 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?,”
21/leadership-or-candlelight-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’ Im-
pact 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/ho
me/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 Philip-
pine Librarianship, 31. pp. 101-109.
jpl/art i cle/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. pp. 21-41.
Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.
Poster, M. (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke University Press.
* This article is a revised version of a presentation made on May 1, 2012 at a small
celebration in honor of the 15
th
Anniversary of the publication of the print edition of
the book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.
Page 25
[Editor’s Note: The following is the text of the Wikipedia entry for Mi-
chael Hauben at https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hauben]
Michael Hauben
Michael Frederick Hauben (May 1, 1973 – June 27, 2001) was
an Internet theorist and author. He pioneered the study of the social im-
pact of the Internet. Based on his interactive online research, in 1993 he
coined the term and developed the concept of
Netizen to describe an
Internet user who actively contributes toward the development of the
Net and acts as a citizen of the Net and of the world. Along with Ronda
Hauben, he co-authored the 1997 book Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet.
1
Hauben’s work is widely referenced
in many scholarly articles and publications about the social impact of
the Internet.
Early Life
Hauben was born on May 1, 1973 in
Boston, Massachusetts, son
of Jay and Ronda Hauben. He was an active participant in the
Bulletin
Board System (BBS) communities in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area in
Michigan where his family had moved.
Work and Scholarship
Hauben participated in the founding meetings of the Amateur
Computerist
2
in 1987. From 1991 to 1997 he attended
Columbia Uni-
versity in NYC, earning a BA in Computer Science (Columbia College
1995) and an MA in Communication (Teachers College 1997). During
his studies at CU, Hauben did much of his original research and writ-
ing. He was all that time an active employee of the CU Academic Infor-
mation Systems (AcIS), serving for one year as a Postmaster and Con-
sultant for Electronic Mail.
Hauben was co-author of the book Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet, a draft of which was put online in
1994. Print editions in English (IEEE Computer Society Press) and Jap-
anese (Chuokoron-Sha, Inc.
3
) were published in 1997. Based on his in-
Page 26
teractive online research, Hauben coined the term ‘Netizen’ and intro-
duced it into popular use. In the Preface to Netizens, Hauben wrote:
“My initial research concerned the origins and development of the glob-
al discussion forum Usenet…. I wanted to explore the larger Net and
what it was and its significance. This is when my research uncovered
the remaining details that helped me to recognize the emergence of
Netizens. There are people online who actively contribute towards the
development of the Net. These people understand the value of collec-
tive 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 FAQ files and other public information repositories, who
maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people who discuss the na-
ture and role of this new communications medium. These are the people
who as citizens of the Net I realized were Netizens.” Hauben observed
that, “The word citizen suggests a geographic or national definition of
social membership. The word Netizen reflects the new non-geographi-
cally based social membership. So I contracted the phrase net.citizen to
Netizen.”
4
His 1993 article “Common Sense: The Impact the Net Has on
People’s Lives”
5
was an analysis of responses Hauben received to ques-
tions he posted on newsgroups and mailing lists. The article begins:
Welcome to the 21
st
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 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.
This article became Chapter One of Netizens.
While still an undergraduate, Hauben began to develop a theo-
retical framework for his vision of the social impact of the net and the
netizens. In his article “The Expanding Commonwealth of Learning:
Printing and the Net,”
6
he applied his study of the Printing Revolution
Page 27
especially the work of Elizabeth Eisenstein to an analysis of the trajec-
tory in which the Internet and netizens are taking society. He wrote,
“Comparing the emergence of the printing press to the emergence of
the global computer network will reveal some of the fascinating paral-
lels which demonstrate how the Net is continuing the important social
revolution that the printing press had begun.” Quoting Hauben’s work,
one author wrote, “On the extraordinary explosion of knowledge with
the Gutenberg printing press, see Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution in
Early Modern Europe. On the intellectual foundation of the Internet
actually being based on the Gutenberg printing press, see Hauben, The
Expanding Commonwealth of Learning: Printing and the Net.”
7
Using a similar method of analysis, Hauben found insights
about the Internet in the understandings of the 19
th
Century Scottish
philosopher James Mill about the importance of “liberty of the press”.
He argued that the net was making it possible for citizens as netizens to
be the watchdogs over governments which Mill argued was the function
of liberty of the press. In a footnote to his article “The Computer as a
Democratizer,”
8
referring to Usenet, Hauben wrote that “the discussions
are very active and provide a source of information that makes it possi-
ble to meet James Mill’s criteria for both more oversight over govern-
ment and a more informed population. In a sense, what was once im-
possible, is now possible.”
Hauben was invited to Japan in 1995 by Shumpei Kumon, soci-
ology professor and director of GLOCOM (the Japanese Center for
Global Communication).
9
In Japan, Hauben was welcomed in Tokyo at
GLOCOM and then in Oita by members of COARA,
10
the computer
network community in Beppu. At the Hypernetwork ‘95 Beppu Bay
Conference,
11
Hauben spoke about “The Netizens and Community Net-
works.”
12
He was interviewed by the local Nisshi-Nippon Press. Then in
Kyoto, he attended two network conferences and was an honored guest
at a reception with the Mayor. Hauben was a speaker also at the
GLOCOM Intelprise-Enterprise Collaboration Program (IECP).
Throughout his stay in Japan, Hauben met Japanese computer and net-
work enthusiasts to discuss the growing importance of this new medium
and his vision of netizenship. Hauben also appeared in documentaries
about the Internet on TV Tokyo and in write-ups in newspapers in To-
Page 28
kyo and Oita. Prof. Kumon included a chapter by Hauben in his 1996
book The Age of the Netizen. In 1997, the Japanese translation of
Netizens: On the History and impact of Usenet and the Internet was
published in a run of 5000 copies.
When he returned home from Japan, Hauben broadened his vi-
sion of the impact the Internet and the netizens would have on society.
He saw in the work of the American anthropologist Margaret Mead that
even in the 1960s a global culture was emerging. Using the writings of
Mead, he countered the critics who claimed that the Internet’s mass cul-
ture was snuffing out cultural differences. He saw instead that “more
and more people of various cultures are understanding the power of the
new communication technologies. More and more people are reacting
against the mass media and corporate dominance and calling for a
chace to express their views and contribute their culture into the global
culture.” Hauben presented his analysis of Internet culture at the 1997
IFIP WG 9.2/9.5 conference in Corfu, Greece.
13
Hauben also explored the question whether
participatory democ-
racy and netizenship are related. He studied the Port Huron Statement
created in 1962 by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and
other sources to see what lessons he could learn about the 1960s that
would help to understand the importance of the Internet and the emer-
gence of the netizens. He opened his analysis with the observation that
“the 1960s was a time of people around the world struggling for more
of a say in the decisions of their society…. People rose up to protest the
ways of society which were out of their control….” Hauben’s conclu-
sion was that “the development of the Internet and emergence of the
netizens is an investment in a strong force toward making direct democ-
racy a reality. The new technologies present the chance to overcome the
obstacles preventing the implementation of direct democracy. Online
communication forums also make possible the discussion necessary to
identify today’s fundamental questions.”
14
Hauben was an avid music fan. He was a
DJ of ambient techno
music on WBAR,
15
the Barnard College student radio station. With
Min-Yen Kan he developed one of the original web sites for band list-
ings, the Ever Expanding Web Music Listing!
16
In 1996, an article in
The Daily Herald (Chicago, IL) described the Ever Expanding Web
Page 29
Music Listing as “probably the World Wide Web’s most comprehen-
sive one-stop resource for all things musical.”
17
In the late 1990s,
Hauben did online reviews of live music performances in New York
City. He was concerned that the youth music scene in NYC not slip into
drugs and commercial dominance. He analyzed trends in youth music
culture and sent out pointers to upcoming events.
18
He saw peer-to-peer
music reviews as an alternative to commercial advertising.
Influence of Hauben’s Work
In the second half of the 1990s, the Internet rapidly spread
around the world. Online and off-line, the term netizen was becoming
widely used. Scholars began to refer to Hauben’s research. For exam-
ple, the Polish scholar and diplomat Leszek Jesien,
19
quoting Hauben,
urged the European political leaders to look at netizenship as a possible
model for a new European citizenship. Boldur Barbat, a Romanian sci-
entist, reviewed Netizens concluding it is a catalyst for the continuing of
information technology and an optimistic future.
20
Citing Hauben’s
work, Cameroonian sociologist Charly G Mbock
21
saw netizenship as a
necessary component of any fight against corruption and as a sign of
hope for “a more equitable sharing of world resources through efficient
interactions.” Turkish educator Dr. E. Özlem Yiðit
22
and Palestinian
scholar Khaled Islaih
23
also referred to Hauben as a source of their un-
derstandings of the importance of netizenship for their respective com-
munities. Hauben’s work on netizens and the Internet is known in
China and has influenced how some academics and government offi-
cials analyze the impact of the Internet on society.
24
In his study of new
media and social media in the Philippines, Aj Garchitorena, as some of
his theoretical foundation, cited Hauben’s work especially Hauben’s
“Theory of the Netizen and the Democratisation of Media.”
25
Garchitorena also built on Hauben’s insight that the net “brings the
power of the reporter to the Netizen.”
With its spread, two general uses of the term netizen developed.
Hauben explained, “The first is a broad usage to refer to anyone who
uses the Net, for whatever purpose…. The second usage is closer to my
understanding… people who care about Usenet and the bigger Net and
work toward building the cooperative and collective nature which bene-
Page 30
fits the larger world. These are people who work towards developing
the Net…. Both uses have spread from the online community, appear-
ing in newspapers, magazines, television, books and other off-line me-
dia. As more and more people join the online community and contribute
toward the nurturing of the Net and toward the development of a great
shared social wealth, the ideas and values of Netizenship spread. But
with the increasing commercialization and privatization of the Net,
Netizenship is being challenged.” He called on scholars, “to look back
at the pioneering vision and actions that have helped make the Net pos-
sible and examine what lessons they provide.” He argued that is what
he and the Netizens book tried to do.
26
One contributor to the 2004 celebration of the 250
th
Anniversary
of Columbia University in New York City, referring to Hauben’s con-
tribution wrote, “While the prevalence and universality of the Internet
today may lead some to take it for granted, Michael Hauben did not. A
pioneer in the study of the Internet’s impact on society, Hauben helped
identify the collaborative nature of the Internet and its effects on the
global community.”
27
Legacy
After sustaining injuries resulting from an accident in December
1999 when he was hit by a taxi, Hauben died in New York City
28
on
June 27, 2001, a victim of suicide. At the time of his death, he had lost
a job, accumulated a large credit card debt, and was about to lose his
apartment.
29
The significance of Hauben’s contribution to the appreciation of
the emergence of the netizen is a deeper sense that the Internet is ac-
companied by an expansion of the fullness of human empowerment. In
2012, cultural anthropologist Shirley Fedorak summed up Hauben’s
contribution. She wrote. “Studies have found that greater participation
in the political landscape is influenced by access to information…. In-
deed, Michael Hauben identified a new form of citizenship emerging
from widespread use of the Internet. Hauben coined the term netizens,
and he considered them crucial for building a more democratic human
society. These individuals are empowered through the Internet and use
Page 31
it to solve socio-political problems and to explore ways of improving
the world.”
30
Bibliography
! Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. published May
1997. by IEEE Computer Society Press. (
ISBN 0-8186-7706-6)
! “Culture and Communication,” chapter in The Ethical Global Information Society:
Culture and Democracy Revisited. Jacques Berleur and Diane Whitehouse.
Editors, IFIP, pp. 197–202. published 1997 by Chapman & Hall.
! “Netizens.” in CMC Magazine. February 1997.
http://www.december.com/cmc/
mag/1997 /feb/hauben.html
! “Birth of Netizens,” chapter in The Age of Netizens., Shumpei Kumon. published
1996 by NTT Press, ISBN 4-87188-461-9
! “Netizens” in The Thinker. Vol. 2, No. 5. February 2, 1996. p. 1. Stanford Univer-
sity.
! “Online Public Discussion and the Future of Democracy.” in Proceedings Telecom-
munities 95: Equity on the Internet. Victoria, B.C, Canada.
! Co-author, “Interview with Henry Spencer: On Usenet News and C News,” chapter
in Internet Secrets. edited by John R. Levine and Carol Baroudi. published
1995. by IDG Books.
! “Exploring New York City’s Online Community,” in CMC Magazine. May 1995.
http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/ mag/1995/may/hauben.html
! “Participatory Democracy From the 1960s and SDS into the Future Online.” 1995.
reprinted in Amateur Computerist Vol. 11 No. 1.
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
ACn11-1.pdf
! “A New Democratic Medium: The Global Computer Communications Network,”
in HKCUS Quarterly. No. 14, July 1994. p. 26. Special Issue on Hong Kong
Media Facing 1997.
References
1. Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, May 1997
http://www.wiley .com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0818677066.html
acnindex2.html
3. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (Japanese),
Chuokoron-Sha, October 1997,
ISBN 4120027333
4. Michael Hauben, “Preface: What is a Netizen?” in Netizens: On the History and
120/ch106.txt
Page 32
5. Michael Hauben, “Common Sense: The Net and Netizens,” Part I/III,
alt.culture.usenet, July 6, 1993
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.culture
.usenet/M-C3Kq2ssRY/ hY66QIJA_I8J
6. Michael Hauben, “The Expanding Commonwealth of Learning: Printing and the
Net” in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, pages 291-
304
http://www.columbia.edu/ ~rh120/ch106.x16
7. Gerald L. Stevens, Revelation: The Past and Future of John’s Apocalypse, Pick-
wick, 2014
JhqQBAAAQBAJ &pg =PA131
8. Michael Hauben, “The Computer as a Democratizer,” in Netizens: On the History
and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, pp. 315-320
http://www.columbia.edu/
~hauben/ronda 2014/demo cratizer.pdf
9. Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan (GLOCOM)
http://www.glocom.ac.jp/e/
10. Mieko and Kenichi Nagano, “A memory of Michael Hauben, the inventor of
NETIZEN,” Oita, Japan, August 6, 2001
http://www.coara.or.jp/~mieko/hauben
/hauben.htm
11. (Hypernetwork ‘95 Beppu Bay Conference), Oita, Japan, Nov. 23-25, 1995
http://www.coara.or.jp/BBC/url.html
12. Michael Hauben, “The Netizens and Community Networks,” CMC Magazine,
February 1997 http://www.decem ber.com/cmc/mag/1997/feb/hauben.html
13. Michael Hauben, “Culture and Communication,” in The Ethical Global Informa-
tion Society: Culture and Democracy Revisited, Jacques Berleur and Diane
Whitehouse, Editors, IFIP, Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 197–202
org/stream/springer_10.1007-978-0-387-35327-2/10.1007-978-0-387-35327-2_dj
vu.txt
14. Michael Hauben, “Participatory Democracy From the 1960s and SDS into the Fu-
ture On-line,” Columbia University, 1995
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/
CS/netdemocracy-60s.txt
15. WBAR: Barnard College Freeform Radio
http://www.wb ar.org/
16. Michael Hauben and Min-Yen Kan, “Ever Expanding Web Music Listing!” (1991-
2001)
http://www.columbia.edu/~hau ben/music/web-music.html
17. “CYBERSPACE: The Internet rocks! Here’s your guide to getting plugged in,”
The Daily Herald (Chicago, IL), January 26, 1996, p. 56
https://www.newspapers.
com/newspage/128 98495/
18. Michael Hauben, “The Netizens Cyberstop Music Page” (last modified: Oct 19,
1996)
http://www.columbia.edu/~hau ben/music/index.html
19. Leszek Jesien, “The 1996 IGC: European Citizenship Reconsidered,” Instituts für
den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa (IDM), March, 1997
http://www.columbia
.edu/~hauben/Era_of_the_Netizen/resources/European_Citizenship_Reconsidered-
LJesien.doc
Page 33
20. Boldur Barbat, “Review of Netizens,” Studies in Informatics and Control Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 4, Bucharest, December 1998
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Era_of
_the_Netizen/ resources/Review_of_Netizens-BBarbat.txt
21. Charly Gabriel Mbock, “Social Sciences and the Social Development Process in
Africa.” in Social Sciences and Innovation, OECD, 2001, pp. 157-172
google.com/books?id =LncFo1_SDxcC&pg=PA157
22. E. Özlem Yiðit, “Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers’ Perspectives Towards
Netizenship,” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 13 Issue 2,
April 2014, pp. 123-124
23. Khaled Islaih, “Palestinian Diaspora: Building Transnational Capital,” Palestine
Economic, Policy Research Institute, 2011, p. 18
http://www.mas.ps/files/server/
20141911094704-1.pdf
24. Yun Tang, Lifeng Sun, Hai Qin, Shiqiang Yang, and Yuzhuo Zhong, “When Most
Quickly Developing Technique Meets with Most Quickly Developing Country: To-
wards Understanding Internet in China,” pp. 2 and 3
https://pdfs.semanticscho
lar.org/f441/f5f46f5e85db3ca488c37b f0f2dc70d5b2ef.pdf
25. Aj Garchitorena, “Pop Culture and the Rise of Social Media in the Philippines: An
Overview,”
http://werdsmith.com/p/ ARutG2rFJ
26. Michael Hauben, “Preface: What is a Netizen?,” in Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet, p. xi
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.txt
27. Simon Butler, “Michael F. Hauben,” Columbia 250, C250 Celebrates Your
Columbians, 2009
http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/your_columbians/
michael_hauben.html
28. Andrew Orlowski, “Michael Hauben, Netizen, Dies: Our Tribute,” The Register
(U.K.), June 30, 2001
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/30/michael_hauben
_netizen_dies//
29. Horvath, John (July 27, 2001). “Death of a Netizen”, Heise. Retrieved June 6,
2015.
30. Shirley A. Fedorak, Anthropology Matters, Second Edition, University of Toronto
Press, 2012, p. 120
https://books .google.com/books?id=X5JeG0ZaqBQC&pg=PA120
External Links
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
Table of Contents (online edition)
Michael Hauben Collected Works
The Netizens Cyberstop (Hauben’s original home page)
Ever Expanding Web Music Listing! (1991-2001)
C250 Celebrates Your Columbians: Michael Hauben
Internet Pioneer
A Memory of Michael Hauben, the Inventor of NETIZEN
Memorial Page
J.C.R. Licklider And The Universal Network
Page 34
Netizen Participation in Internet Governance
[Editor’s Note: The following is a slightly revised version of a presenta-
tion made to a Social Movements class at Barnard College in Nov.
2017.]
Netizens and the Vision for the
Future of the Net A Special Moment
and Netizens in Candlelight 2008
by Ronda Hauben
Part I – Context
First I want to offer a context for the origins and importance of
“The Net and Netizens; the Impact of the Net Has on People’s Lives,”
an article that became the basis for Chapter 1 of the book Netizens: On
the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Then I will take a
brief look at netizen activity in the 2008 Candlelight demonstrations in
South Korea.
The article and the chapter are a collection of some of the expe-
riences made possible by the Internet in what might be called the Dawn
of the Internet’s development. The author of the article, Michael
Hauben is also the co-author with me of the book. I will refer to this
book as the Netizens book in this talk. The book was first put online Jan
12, 1994 and then published in a print edition in May 1997.
In 1992-1993 Michael was an undergraduate student at Colum-
bia University and at the time he was interested in studying communi-
cation and the potential impact of the Internet. In 1992, he enrolled in a
course in ethics and computer science. The professor wanted students to
do a project, which was not based on information from books.
The obvious possibility for Michael was to go online and try to
gather material about a question he was deeply interested in, which was
the impact that the Internet would have on society.
Page 35
The Internet had been in the process of development for 20
years by this time. But it was only in 1992-1993 that it was becoming
accessible to the public and connections were becoming available to
people and institutions around the world.
So this was, one can say, a special moment when Michael was
able to be online at Columbia University and able to do research for his
class using the Internet.
There is another aspect of this moment that is important to rec-
ognize. The research process creating the Internet was in general a pub-
lic process. Public funds were used and during this period it was avail-
able free to those with an educational purpose. Commercial entities,
during this period were restricted in what they could do online.
Michael’s use of the Internet fell within its education scope. In general
those online did not pay time or access charges for the time they were
online. At the time, there were also commercial networks like Comp-
userve where one did pay time charges for being online. But also the
U.S. government was claiming that in the next few years it would make
the Internet commercial and turn it over to private corporations.
In planning his project, Michael formulated a few questions and
sent them out online, via some different networks that were available
and on mailing lists he had access to. In the appendix to the book ver-
sion of Chapter I, there are copies of some of the questions Michael
posted online for his research.
Fairly quickly, he received a number of substantial email re-
sponses to his questions. He gathered these, studied the content and
then wrote the article he called “The Net and Netizens: the Impact the
Net has on People’s Lives.”
Essentially what the “Net and Netizens” article does is docu-
ment a number of ways that the people who wrote him had found the
Net to be a significant contribution to their lives.
As I remember this period, those of us who had gotten access to
the Net were busy exploring what this access would make possible.
For example, an Irish expat living in the England was able to
keep up with events in Ireland by reading a weekly newsletter sent out
online by a man who worked for a computer company in Galway. A
music fan in the U.S. was able to learn from the Internet about a Roger
Page 36
Waters concert held in Berlin one week after the Berlin Wall came
down and so was able to go to Berlin in time for the concert. There
were four computer science researchers in different parts of the U.S.
who were able to write a research paper because of the connectivity the
Net made possible. There was a poem written by two people using the
Net together, which one of the authors described as “a surprisingly
good poem.”
These are just a flavor of some of the different contributions to
people’s lives that the Net made possible which people online shared
with Michael via email or as comments on his posts.
There are two special aspects that he included in the Net and
Netizens. First is the reference to the vision for the Internet that was put
forward by JCR Licklider whom Michael calls a “prophet of the net.”
Licklider was a psychologist and computer scientist brought by
the Department of Defense’s research entity known as ARPA to be the
head of its first “Information Processing Techniques Office” (IPTO).
Essentially, Licklider recognized the important role that the computer
could play in human communication. “When minds interact, new ideas
emerge” was one of his understandings that helped to guide the research
for the development of the Net. In a paper Licklider wrote with another
researcher Robert Taylor in 1968, they recognized the creative role of
the new forms of communication that the Net would help bring into
being, and the collaborative activity that these new forms of communi-
cation made possible.
Another significant aspect of the “Net and Netizens” article is
the introduction and explanation of the new identity of the Netizen that
had emerged with the development of the Internet.
Remember, the article was written in 1992-1993. Yet it begins
with a prediction for the future in the new century that at the time was
just a few years away.
The article opens with the greeting:
Welcome to the 21
st
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
Page 37
live in one country but you are in contact with much of
the world via the global computer network….
It goes on to explain that the situation being described “is only a
prediction of the future, but a large part of the necessary infrastructure
currently exists….” And this new infrastructure would make possible
some important developments. Among these Michael proposed was that
“a new world of connections would be possible, from individual to indi-
vidual or from individuals to the collective mass of those on the Net.
The old model of distribution of information from a central network
broadcasting company was being questioned and even challenged. The
top-down model of information being distributed by a few for mass
consumption was no longer the only news. Now the formerly excluded
sections of society would have a means to have a voice.”
But for these developments to be realized, there would be the
struggle to make access to the Net open and available to all.
When Michael posted his articles like the Net and Netizens, he
was greeted with encouragement. And the concept of netizen spread
both around the Net and then off-line. For example one of the netizens
writing Michael was Philip Fleisser from Ottawa. He encouraged Mi-
chael to put together his articles in a book and to gather other articles as
well which Phil tentatively titled “Readings on the Emergence of a
Better World Due to the Participatory Nature of Public Computer Net-
works.”
As the concept of netizen spread, Michael recognized that two
different uses of the concept were developing. In a talk he gave at a
conference in Japan, he pointed out that one use of the concept was to
refer to all users as netizens. But this was not the usage that he had in
mind for the concept when he introduced it. For Michael the discovery
of the emergence of the netizens was based on the recognition of the
empowerment that the Net made possible and the identified netizens as
those who used this empowerment to contribute to the net and the larger
world it was part of. Michael reserved the use of the concept of
Netizens to describe such users.
In May of 1997 the Netizen book was published in a print edi-
tion in the U.S. and in October 1997 it was published in a Japanese edi-
tion. Five years ago in 2002 in South Korea some of the significant po-
Page 38
tential of the netizens which Michael foresaw was demonstrated, with
the candlelight demonstrations and the netizens electing the President.
Part II – South Korea and Netizens
Over the years there have been many examples of researchers
referring to netizen developments in various parts of the world. Some of
the most advanced examples of both the research and practice of
netizens have been in South Korea.
There is a proud tradition of protest and sacrifice on the part of
South Koreans to win the minimal democratic rights they have gained.
Also South Korea is one of the most wired countries in the world where
a larger percentage of its population, compared with many other coun-
tries, have 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. I
learned that 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 the December
2002. That event and subsequent events I learned about led me to un-
derstand that already in 2003 netizens had become an important phe-
nomenon in South Korea.
I learned, too, that the Korean word for netizen is , the
same as the English word, though spoken with a Korean pronunciation
“netijeun.”
I was also encouraged to see that our book was known in South
Korea, and that over the years, several commentators and scholars in
South Korea have written about the importance of the concept of
netizens.
Part III – 2008 Candlelight Demonstrations
By the 2007 South Korean presidential election, however, a law
came into effect which penalized with fines or even jail time netizens
Page 39
who tried to post online about the election. And the posts were re-
moved. That censorship contributed to the conservative candidate Lee
Myung-bak being elected with the lowest percentage of the population
voting in the election. Then in April 2008, the newly inaugurated presi-
dent Lee Myung-bak met with the U.S. President George W Bush. On
April 18 President Lee signed an agreement to end the former restric-
tions 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 de-
signed to protect the South Korean public against exposure to the hu-
man version of Mad Cow Disease.
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 dis-
cussion about the beef deal, a candlelight demonstration was called for
May 2, 2008 by middle-school girls and high-school students using
their cell phones and a fan website among other online sites. The efforts
of some of the members of one online group called “Soul Dressers”
helped organize toward the May 2 demonstration. Over 10,000 people
are reported to have come to the demonstration. When that large turnout
appeared at the demonstration, many were surprised and it was decided
to continue the next day.
1
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 can-
dles. 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 agreement,
the underlying demand of the demonstrators was that the program of
Lee and his conservative party not be allowed to take South Korea back
Page 40
to the days of autocratic rule. There was also a call for Lee Myung-
bak’s impeachment.
People participated both online and in person at the demonstra-
tions. Among the participants were “members of a cooking club, a clas-
sical music society, a fashion club, a U.S. major league baseball watch-
ing club,” and other similar groups on the Internet. “Some of them
joined the protests with their flags, distributed snacks and water to fel-
low 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 pre-
viously engaged in politics. But remarks made by some in the group led
others to join the online discussion and participate in trying to get a
harmful government policy changed.
Part IV – Closing Observation
In the Net and Netizens, Michael writes, “The Net introduces
the basic idea of democracy as the grassroots people power of the
Netizens.” One report by the international TV channel France 24,
agreeing with Michael, describes what happened:
2
In South Korea a new form of democratic expression
has emerged via the Internet. Its followers call them-
selves Netizens and when demonstrating against the gov-
ernment they carry their laptops to broadcast the event
live....
One researcher, Min Kyung Bae poses the problem as the con-
trast between “Analog Government, Digital Citizens.”
3
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 Lee Myung-bak closed off the Plaza to the public,
the netizens took on to create an online public square and from that on-
line commons to move the public back onto the off-line public square.
Page 41
Min ends his article with the call, “Analog politicians must real-
ize that the Internet offers an opportunity for a breakthrough to improve
Korea’s stagnant political culture. The candles lighting up Gwangh-
wamun Plaza are carrying the demand that representative democracy
evolve into a new form suitable to the Internet age.”
Notes:
1. A 42 minute film, “Shall We Protest?” is online which documents how the 2008
candlelight demonstrations in South Korea were initiated by high school students. It
can be viewed at:
http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/shallweprotest/videos/
ShallWeProtest1.3en.ogv/
2. Nathalie Touret, “South Korean ‘Netizens’ Take to the Streets,” France 24 Interna-
tional News, June 18, 2008.
3. Kyung Bae Min, “Analog Government, Digital Citizens,” Global Asia, Vol. 3 No.
3; Sept. 2008, pp. 94-103. Online at:
http://www.globalasia.org/v3no3/feature/ana
log-government-digital-citizens_kyung-bae-min
Editor’s Note: The following is an expanded and updated version of a
paper prepared for the IFIP-WG 9.2/9.5 Working Conference on Cul-
ture and Democracy Revisited in the Global Information Society, May
8-10, 1997, Corfu (Greece). A version appears as Chapter 17, in An
Ethical Global Information Society: Culture and Democracy Revisited,
Jacques Berleur and Diane Whitehouse, Editors, IFIP, 1997, pp. 197-
202.]
Culture and Communication:
The Impact of the Internet on the
Emerging Global Culture
by Michael Hauben
Any document that attempts to cover an emerging cul-
ture is doomed to be incomplete. Even more so if the
culture has no overt identity (at least none outside virtual
Page 42
space). But the other side of that coin presents us with
the opportunity to document the ebb and flow, the mo-
ments of growth and defeat, the development of this
young culture. (John Frost, Cyberpoet’s Guide to Virtual
Culture, 1993)
Abstract
As we approached the new millennium, social relationships were changing
radically. Even in 1969, the anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote of an “approaching
worldwide culture.” While she wrote of a global culture made possible by the elec-
tronic and transportation advances of her day, her words actually foresaw fundamental
changes that have been substantially enhanced by the computer communication net-
works that were just beginning. A new culture is being formed out of a universal de-
sire for communication. This culture is partly formed and formulated by new technol-
ogy and by social desires. People are dissatisfied with their conditions, whether tradi-
tional or modern. Much of the new communication technology facilitates new global
connections. This article will explore the emerging culture and the influence of the net
on this new participatory global culture.
I – The Emerging Globalization of Everyday Life
The concept of a global culture arises from the extensive devel-
opment of transportation and communication technologies in the twen-
tieth century. These developments have linked the world together in
ways which make it relatively simple to travel or communicate with
peoples and cultures around the world. The daily exposure of the
world’s peoples to various cultures makes it impossible for almost any
individual to envision the world consisting of only his or her culture
(Mead, 1978, p. 69). We really are moving into a new global age which
affects most aspects of human life. For example, world trade has be-
come extensive, more and more words are shared across languages,
people are aware of political situations around the world and how these
situations affect their own, and sports and entertainment are viewed si-
multaneously by global audiences. The exposure to media and forms of
communication helps spread many of these cultural elements. While
television and radio connect people with the rest of the world in a rather
removed and often passive fashion, computer networks are increasingly
bringing people of various cultures together in a much more intimate
Page 43
and grassroots manner. A global culture is developing, and the Internet
is strongly contributing to its development.
Culture is a difficult concept to define. Tim North has gathered
six different definitions in his unpublished master’s thesis (1994, chap-
ter 4.2.1):
1. Culture: The shared behavior learned by members of a soci-
ety, the way of life of a group of people (Barnouw, 1987, p. 423).
2. A culture is the way of life of a group of people, the complex
of shared concepts and patterns of learned behavior that are handed
down from one generation to the next through the means of language
and imitation (Barnouw, 1987, p. 4).
3. Culture: The set of learned behaviours, beliefs, attitudes and
ideals that are characteristic of a particular society or population (Em-
ber and Ember, 1990, p. 357).
4. Culture … taken in its wide ethnographic sense is that com-
plex whole that includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom
and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a
society (Tyler, 1871; cited in Harris 1988, p. 122).
5. Culture: The customary manner in which human groups learn
to organize their behavior in relation to their environment (Howard,
1989, p. 452).
6. Culture (general): The learned and shared kinds of behavior
that make up the major instrument of human adaption. Culture (particu-
lar): The way of life characteristic of a particular human society
(Nanda, 1991, p. G-3).
One common category in some of these definitions is the pass-
ing of previously learned behavior from one generation to the next. An-
other common category in North’s definitions of culture is the impor-
tance of experience and patterns of behavior being shared among a
group of people.
Historically, during most periods, culture has changed slowly
and has been passed on from generation to generation. In the last half of
the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century, however,
for most peoples the normal rate of cultural evolution has been acceler-
ating. Mead (1978, p. 64) writes that while in the past, culture was
transmitted from the older generation to the younger with slow change
Page 44
from generation to generation, today the younger generation learn from
both their elders and their peers. The learning from peers is then shared
with their elders. Human culture gets set by how people live their lives
(Graham, 1995). Culture is created and re-enforced through how that
person lives in context of society and social movements. One is taught
the culture of his or her society while growing up, but those perceptions
change as he or she matures, develops and lives an adult life. Culture is
not statically defined. Rather, a person grows up into a culture and then
can contribute to its change as time progresses. (Mead, 1956)
People are increasingly living a more global lifestyle, whether
mediated through television, radio and newspapers, travel or actual ex-
perience. This global experience is facilitated by the ability of the indi-
vidual to interact with people from other cultures and countries on a
personal level. Images and thoughts available via mass media show that
other cultures exist. But when people from different cultures actually
get a chance to talk and interact, then the differences become less of an
oddity and more of an opportunity (Uncapher, 1992). Professor Dennis
Sumara argues that the formation of self-identity is influenced by rela-
tions with others. He writes:
The sense of self-identity … emerges … from our sym-
biotic relations with others. In coming to know others we
learn about ourselves. It is important to note, however,
that it is not a static or unified self that we come to
know, for in the coming-to-know – we are changed. We
evolve through our relations with others …. (Sumara,
1996, p. 56)
That implies that people and cultures change from the interaction with
other people’s cultures. This new interaction and subsequent change is
part of the formation of a global culture.
There are critics (Appadurai, 1990, etc.) who claim this global
culture, or mass culture is snuffing out individual differences for a pre-
packaged commercial culture. These critics call for the isolation of
communities from each other so that uniqueness can be preserved. This
criticism misses that human culture is a dynamic element of society,
and freezing it would produce a museum of human society. Uncapher
(1992) correctly points out that what these critics do not recognize is
Page 45
that more and more people of various cultures are understanding the
power of the new communication technologies. More and more people
are reacting against the mass media and corporate dominance and call-
ing for a chance to express their views and contribute their culture into
the global culture. As an example, Margaret Mead tells a story (1978,
pp. 5-6) of returning to a village in New Guinea which she had visited
three decades earlier. She wrote(p. 5):
In the 1930s, when one arrived in a New Guinea village,
the first requests were for medicine … and for trade
goods. The European was expected to bring material ob-
jects from the outside world …. But in 1967 the first
conversation went:
“Have you got a tape recorder?”
“Yes, why?”
“We have heard other people’s singing on the radio and
we want other people to hear ours.”
The presence of radios made the villagers aware of the music of others,
and they wanted a part of their culture broadcast around the world.
Mead understood the importance of diversity to the survival and
strength of a species, whether human or animal. However, she also un-
derstood that part of the global commonality was through the spread of
scientific understandings and technological developments. The desire
for technology is strong among those who have only heard about its
advantages. She wrote, “People who have only seen airplanes in the sky
and heard the wonderful ways of radio, satellites, telescopes, micro-
scopes, engines, and script are eager to experience these things for them-
selves.” (Mead, 1978, p. 121) The Internet is one of the new technologi-
cal advances of today, and can be seen to fit with the above examples. It
is important to understand that coupled with the desire for the techno-
logical advances is the understanding of the need to control the intro-
duction of such technology and participate to have its use benefit the
particular peoples in their particular needs. The peoples of the world
understand that with the implementation of technology comes a respon-
sibility for the management and careful handling of that technology.
Mead writes about this (1978, pp. 153-154):
Page 46
… the very burgeoning of science that has resulted in
world-wide diffusion of a monotonous modern culture
has also stimulated people throughout the world to de-
mand participation. And through this demand for partici-
pation in the benefits of a monotonous, homogeneous
technology, we have actually generated new ways to pre-
serve diversity.
Even in the primitive communities that Mead studied in the Pa-
cific Islands, she recorded that these people adopted democracy and the
use of technology with their own variations and new aspects that served
their own needs. The new advances in communication technologies fa-
cilitate new democratic processes. People are discovering new ways to
participate and add their cultural contributions to a larger world. Efforts
to communicate via technology require the acceptance of technological
standards and the building of a common technical framework. The
growth of communications networks and standards at the same time
allows diverse cultures to share and spread their varying cultures with
others.
II – Global Contact over Computer Networks
The new media of forums, newsgroups, email, chat rooms, blogs
and webpages on the internet facilitate the growth of global interactive
communities. These electronic communication forms are made avail-
able through community networks, universities, the workplace, portals
and internet service providers (Hauben & Hauben, 1997, p. 8). Human
culture is ever evolving and developing, and the new public commons
that these technologies make possible is of a global nature. A growing
number of people are coming together online and living more time of
their daily lives with people from around the world. Through the shar-
ing of these moments by people, their cultures are coming to encompass
more of the world not before immediately available. Mead (1978, p. 88)
understood that a global community and awareness would require the
development of a new kind of communication that depended on the par-
ticipation of those who previously had no access to such power or such
a voice.
Page 47
Newsgroups and forums are a relatively young medium of hu-
man discourse and communication. The Usenet technology, one of the
first broad newsgroup networks, was developed by graduate students in
the late 1970s as a way to promote the sharing of information and to
spread communication between university campuses. Their design
highlighted the importance of the contribution by individuals to the
community. The content of Usenet was produced by members of the
community for the whole of the community. Active participation was
required for Usenet to have anything available on it. It was the opposite
of a for-pay service that provides content and information. On Usenet,
the users produced the content, i.e., talk, debate, discussion, flames,
reportage, nonsense, and scientific breakthroughs filled the space.
Usenet was a public communications technology framework which was
open. The users participated in determining what newsgroups were cre-
ated, and then filled those newsgroups with messages that were the con-
tent of Usenet. In forming this public space, or commons, people were
encouraged to share their views, thoughts, and questions with others
(Hauben & Hauben, 1997, p. 4). The chance to contribute and interact
with other people spread Usenet to become a truly global community of
people hooking their computers together to communicate. People both
desire to talk and to communicate with other people (Graham, 1995;
Woodbury, 1994). Usenet was created to make that communication
happen. In time it also gave a public voice to those who would not have
had the opportunity otherwise to have their voice heard. By promoting a
democratic medium, these graduate students who created Usenet were
helping to create the kind of medium Mead believed was an important
condition toward the development of a global culture.
In a study about the global online culture, Tim North (1994,
chapter 5.2) asked the question “is there an on-line culture and society
on Usenet?” His conclusion was that there was a definite Usenet cul-
ture. He listed four of the important defining aspects of this unique on-
line culture:
1. The conventions of the culture are freely discussed.
2. The culture is not closed to outsiders and welcomes new
members.
3. There is a strong sense of community within the Net culture.
Page 48
4. It’s what you say, not who you are.
North described the Usenet culture as open and welcoming of
newcomers even if there was an occasional unfriendliness to “newbies.”
He focused on how the online culture was documented and available so
newcomers could figure out how the community functioned and more
easily join it. But also not only was the documentation available online
to learn from, it was open for discussion.
Another researcher in the 1990s, Bruce Jones described the full-
ness of net culture:
… the Usenet network of computers and users consti-
tutes a community and a culture, bounded by its own set
of norms and conventions, marked by its own linguistic
jargon and sense of humor and accumulating its own
folklore. (1991, p. 2)
Jones elaborates on what he saw to be an egalitarian tendency or ten-
dency to contribute to the community’s benefit. Jones wrote:
… the people of the net owe something to each other.
While not bound by formal, written agreements, people
nevertheless are required by convention to observe cer-
tain amenities because they serve the greater common
interest of the net. These aspects of voluntary association
are the elements of culture and community that bind the
people of Usenet together. (p. 4)
While North proposed that Usenet was a distinct culture, he ar-
gued that it could not be considered a separate society. Rather, Usenet
was “a superstructural society that spans many mainstream societies
and is dependent upon them for its continued existence.” (1994, chap.
4.2.2)
North argued that the Net does not need to provide the physical
needs made possible by a society. He wrote:
In this superstructural view, the Net is freed of the re-
sponsibilities of providing certain of the features pro-
vided by other societies (e.g., reproduction, food and
shelter) by virtue of the fact that its members are also
members of traditional mainstream societies that do sup-
ply them. (1994, chap. 4.2.2)
Page 49
Rather, those who use the Net live in their daily off-line society, and
come to the Net for reasons other than physical needs. Others (Avis,
1995; Graham, 1995; Jones, 1991) also studied this new online culture
and its connection to the growing global culture. They saw there are a
distinct online culture and a distinct off-line global culture. While the
online culture strongly contributes to the developing global culture off-
line, it is not the sole contributing factor. The contribution of the online
culture to the global culture through such technologies as forums and
electronic mailing lists is important as the online media requires partici-
pation of the users to exist. Since as media forums, newsgroups and
social websites encourage participation, they support the contributions
of many diverse people and cultures to the broader global culture.
Both the technological design of opening one’s computer up to
accept contributions of others and the desire to communicate led to the
creation of an egalitarian culture (Jones, 1991; North, 1994; Woodbury,
1994). People have both a chance to introduce and share their own cul-
ture and a chance to broaden themselves through exposures to various
other cultures. As such, the online culture is an example of a global cul-
ture which is not a reflection of purely one culture. Instead, it both in-
corporates cultural elements from many nations and builds a new cul-
ture (North, 1994). Self-identity evolves through relations with others.
(Sumara, 1996, p. 56) The new connections between people of different
cultures allows each culture to broaden itself based on the new under-
standings available from other places; culture changes through the ex-
change with new ways of understanding and life. And this change and
shared changes gets shared around the world.
III – Community Networks making Online Access Available
Being a relatively young medium, the Net is available to a sub-
set of the world. However, this is rapidly changing. Projects are extend-
ing the connections to undeveloped countries and the basic technology
needed to gain access is as simple as a computer and modem connected
to the local telephone or amateur radio network. More and more people
around the world are getting online via mobile devices. Another hurdle
to overcome is technical training. However, the democratic ethos of the
Net spreads through the help that users offer each other online. A large
Page 50
number of people who are on the Net want more people to be able to
use computer technology. Many are helpful and take the time and effort
to spread their knowledge to others who desire to learn. Similarly ev-
eryone online at one point was new and learning. This experience of
‘newbie’-ness provides a common heritage to unite people. The prob-
lems encountered in implementing and using new technology encour-
ages people to connect to others using the technology. This is an incen-
tive to hook into the internet where such people can be contacted. The
commonality of people participating in the same technology creates a
basis to develop commonality toward other interests.
Community networks in the 1990s provided a way for citizens
of a locality to hook into these global communities for little or no cost
(Graham, 1995). Community networks also provided a way for commu-
nities to truly represent themselves to others connected online. (Gra-
ham, 1995; Weston, 1994) Without access made available through com-
munity networks, through publicly available computer terminals or lo-
cal dial-in phone numbers, only those who could have afforded the cost
of a computer and the monthly charges of commercial internet service
providers (ISPs) or online services or who had access through work or
school would represent themselves. (Avis, 1995) Particular portraits of
various cultures would thus be only partially represented. Also, when
access is available and open to all, a greater wealth of contributions can
be made. For example, there was a strong push in Canada and Canadian
communities to get online. A lot of grassroots community network
building took place. A Canadian national organization, Telecom-
munities Canada, stressed the importance of contributing Canada’s var-
ious cultures to the online community and in this way made a contribu-
tion to the whole community. (Graham, 1995; Weston, 1994) In a simi-
lar way, Izumi Aizu (1995, p. 6) says that Japan had “an opportunity to
bring its own cultural value to the open world.” He continues, “It also
opens the possibility of changing Japan into a less rigid, more decen-
tralized society, following the network paradigm exercised by the dis-
tributed nature of the Internet itself.” (Aizu, 1995, p. 6)
There is something to be said about the attraction of represent-
ing one’s self to the greater community. The many-to-many form of
communication where an individual can broadcast to the community
Page 51
and get responses back from other individuals is an empowering experi-
ence. No longer do you have to be rich and powerful to communicate
broadly to others and to represent yourself and your own views. This
power is making it possible for individuals to communicate with others
of similar and differing interests around the world. Grass-roots organi-
zation is boosted and even the formation of local community groups is
all accelerated. Development of the commons to the exclusion of the
big media representations makes this an electronic grass-roots medium,
or a new enlarged public commons. (Felsenstein, 1993)
The online culture is primarily a written one, although much of
the text is written generally in an informal, almost off-the-cuff fashion.
While people will post papers and well thought out ideas, much of the
conversation is generated in an immediate response to others’ mes-
sages. This text can feel like a conversation, or a written version of oral
culture. Stories akin to the great stories of the pre-history come about.
Legends and urban myths circulate and are disseminated. (Jones, 1991)
Pictures and other non-text items can be posted or sent in messages, but
these non-text items are primarily transferred and not modified, thought
upon or communally worked on as are the textual ideas. Graphics and
graphical communication and collaboration occur more on websites,
although they are still a less effective communication medium. The
common shared online language was in the beginning English. (Aizu)
That is changing. Other languages exist in country hierarchies and
newsgroups and in mailing lists, along with chat rooms, search engines
and web pages. Moreover, all these developments, textual or graphic,
make possible a global conversation of diverse views. Mead recognizes
that “True communication is a dialogue.” (Mead, 1978, p. 77) She
points out that real communication occurs “… in a world in which con-
flicting points of view, rather than orthodoxies, are prevalent and acces-
sible.” (Mead, 1978, p. 80)
IV – Conclusion
The new global culture is forming in several ways, none of
which is a generic corporate rubber stamp. People are taking charge.
They are bringing their own cultures into the global culture and spread-
ing this new culture around the world. This is taking on a general form
Page 52
and an online form. The online form provides a strong means by which
people can spread their ideas and culture which in turn affects the
broader global culture. This broader global culture also has an effect on
newsgroups or online media. The ability to express oneself to the rest of
the world is addictive and the rapid increase of new people joining the
online global community makes that manifest. “The voiceless and the
oppressed in every part of the world have begun to demand more power
…. The secure belief that those who knew had authority over those who
did not has been shaken.” (Mead, 1978, p. 5) Mead states later, “There
are new technological conditions within which a new initiative for the
human race is possible. But it will not be found without a vision.” To
the former call for brotherhood and sisterhood or of loyalty to kin and
one’s ancestors, Mead proposes, “we can now add a vision of a plane-
tary community.” She explains that “Within such a vision, the contribu-
tions of each culture … can become complementary.” However, Mead
emphasizes, “but within the new vision there must be no outsiders.”
(pp. 147-148)
References
Aizu, Izumi. (1995). “Cultural Impact on Network Evolution in Japan Emergence of
Netizens.” Institute for HyperNetwork Society. Center for Global Commun-
ications (GLOCOM). International University of Japan. Available:
http://www.nira.or.jp/past/publ/review/95autu mn/aizu.html
Appadurai, Arjun. (1990). “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Econ-
omy.” Public Culture. 2, pp. 1–24.
Avis, Andrew. (1995) Public Spaces on the Information Highway: The Role of Com-
munity Networks. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Calgary. Cal-
gary, Alberta, Canada.
Barnouw, V. (1987). An introduction to Anthropology: Ethnology. 5
th
Ed. Chicago:
The Dorsey Press.
Ember, C. R. & M. Ember. (1990). Cultural Anthropology. 6
th
Ed. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Felsenstein, Lee. (1993, May). “The Commons of Information.” Dr. Dobbs’ Journal.
pp. 18–22.
Frost, John. (1993). Cyberpoet’s Guide to Virtual Culture. Available:
http://www.reststop.net/cybercomm/cgvc 1.html
Graham, Garth. (March 29, 1995). A Domain Where Thought is Free to Roam: The
Social Purpose of Community Networks. Prepared for Telecommunities Can-
Page 53
ada for CRTC Public Hearings on Information Highway. Available:
http ://www.ncf.ca/ncf/freeport2html/conferences/access95/read
ing/crtc_bri.txt.html
Harris, M. (1988). Culture, People, Nature: An introduction to General Anthropology.
5
th
Ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. (1997). Netizens: On The History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Also available (1994):
http://www.columbia.edu/ ~hauben/netbook/
Howard, M.C. (1989). Contemporary Cultural Anthropology. 3
rd
Ed. Glenview, Il:
Scott, Foresman and Co.
Jones, Bruce. (1991). An Ethnography of the Usenet Computer Network: Proposal for
a Ph.D. Dissertation in Communications. University of California, San
Diego. Dept. of Communication.
Mead, Margaret. (1956). New Lives For Old: Cultural Transformations - Manus,
1928-1953. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Mead, Margaret. (1978). Culture and Commitment: The New Relationships Between
the Generations in the 1970s. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Nanda, S. (1991). Cultural Anthropology. 4
th
Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
North, Tim. (1994) The Internet and Usenet Global Computer Networks: An Investi-
gation of Their Culture and its Effects on New Users. Unpublished master’s
thesis. Curtin University of Technology. Perth, Australia.
Sumara, Dennis J. (1996). “Private readings in public: Schooling the literary imagina-
tion.” In Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education. Counterpoint. Vol.
26 (Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg General Editors). New York:
Peter Lang.
Uncapher, Willard. (1992) Between Local and Global: Placing the Mediascape in the
Transnational Cultural Flow. Available:
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/cour
ses/encr481/Uncapher.doc
Weston, Jay. (Nov. 26, 1994). Old Freedoms and New Technologies: The Evolution of
Community Networking. Paper presented at the Free Speech and Privacy in
the Information Age Symposium: The University of Waterloo, Canada. Pub-
lished in The Information Society: An International Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 2,
1997. Available:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01972249712
9214?queryID=%24{resultBean.queryID}#preview. Access restricted.
Woodbury, Gregory G. (1994, Fall). “Net Cultural Assumptions.” Amateur
Computerist Newsletter. Vol. 6 No. 2-3. Available:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/
acn/ACN6-2-3. pdf
Page 54
[Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a presentation made at the
Cyberculture and Youth sub forum at the World Internet Conference in
Wuzhen, China on Oct 21, 2019.]
The Netizen as the Emerging
New Form of Citizenship
by Ronda Hauben
I am happy to be here today to make a contribution about the
nature and importance of netizens.
In my talk I want to focus on this significant phenomenon that
has emerged along with the Internet's development. That is the
Netizens.
First I want to give an example.
Recently Facebook users in Turkey have been finding ways to
enhance Turkish-Greek friendship. They post about similarities in
Greek and Turkish culture with the mission of diminishing the historic
hostility that is common between the two peoples.
In a study,
1
Turkish researchers sought to determine if these on-
line friendship groups between the two peoples help to build friendly
feelings on a cultural basis. The study stresses that the effort is to dis-
cuss subjects like foods the two groups eat that are similar, pictures of
holidays each group celebrates, and music video clips by each of the
two groups. Such postings are intended to convey the common idea that
people of both groups are “ordinary people with common world views.”
This study refers to the definition of the word netizen provided
by Michael Hauben in the book Netizens: on the History and Impact of
Usenet and the Internet.
2
A Netizen (net citizen) exists “as a citizen of the world thanks to
the global connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider ev-
eryone 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…. A new more democratic world is becoming possible … that
allows excluded sections of society to have a voice.”
Page 55
Such activity on the part of netizens of different nations is in-
tended to create a peace communications channel for building peaceful
feelings between different peoples via the netizen contributions to the
Internet.
This is an example of online activity that is consistent with the
definition of netizen acting as a citizen of the Net, as a net citizen.
The concept of the citizen of the net was part of the original def-
inition of the word netizen. But the word has also come to be used as
describing all users online. Netizens in the original definition describes
those who actively contribute to the development and defense of the
Internet as a global communications platform. It describes those who
come online for public rather than simply for personal and entertain-
ment purposes.
Why is this distinction important?
There is universal appreciation that the Internet is a major ad-
vance in human communication. But it is less well understood that the
Internet brings to ordinary people an empowerment, a greater chance to
have a fuller spectrum of information and opinion and a chance to par-
ticipate and get feedback.
Feeling that empowerment, some people online, not all people
but some, adopt public purposes. They become citizens of the net. This
is an ongoing process. Having online search engines, a wide variety of
information repositories, and different sources of news and eye witness
reports, make people better informed. Plus the possible contact with
other people not restricted by location, is a force to increase people’s
confidence and ability to make a contribution toward the solution of the
problems of their society, and in so doing they help to build a more
peaceful world in the process.
Thank you for your attention.
Notes
1. Burak Gümüº, A Baran Dural, Mustafa Selcuk, “Kalimerhaba: Turkish-Greek
Facebook Communities,” Atlasjournal of Social Sciences, 2018. Online at:
https://
www.academia.edu/37946632/ Kalimerhaba_Turkish-Greek_Facebook_Communities
Page 56
2. Michael Hauben, Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.
[Editor’s Note: Ronda and Jay Hauben attended the 6
th
World Internet
Conference (WIC) in Wuzhen, Zhejian Province, China, Oct 20-22,
2019. Following is a summary of what they experienced at that confer-
ence.]
Our Experiences at the 2019 World
Internet Conference
by Jay Hauben
The theme of the 6
th
World Internet Conference was to “Jointly
Build a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace.” The organiz-
ers reported that there were around 1500 attendees from 83 countries.
The Conference consisted of an opening ceremony, 20 sub forums and
a major exhibit of Internet related technologies. There was much talk
about the expected new scientific and industrial revolution coming from
the combination of 5G network technology, AI (Artificial Intelligence),
block chain, Big Data, and Internet of Things (IoT). Especially, AI was
seen as having great potential but also great risk. A question debated at
one of the sub forums was how to build structural precautions against
the risks of AI. To me that is the most pressing task concerning AI.
In the opening ceremony, a congratulatory message was read
from Xi Jinping, President of China. The keynote speakers emphasized
the points made in this message and in President Xi’s speech at the 2
nd
WIC in Wuzhen in 2015. Included in that speech and repeated in the
opening ceremony was the principle, Promotion of Openness and Coop-
eration. In 2015 President Xi said, “All countries should advance
opening-up and cooperation in cyberspace and further substantiate and
enhance the opening-up efforts.” One of the keynote speakers saw this
openness and cooperation as the way to build a community with a shar-
ed future in cyberspace, the theme of the conference. It seemed the
Page 57
openness discussed was aimed at countries and each other’s IT industry
not the users. To me however it should be taken as an encouragement
for the Internet to be open for a broad set of voices and opinions. It was
also mentioned in the keynote speeches that the Internet helps cultures
to blend and guides users to a higher level of people to people friend-
ship. Seeking such people to people friendship is one strong motivation
for our visits to China.
In the plenary session that followed the opening ceremony, Ste-
phen Wolff give a brief history of the Internet. Wolff had been, from
1986 to 1994, the Division Director at the U.S. National Science Foun-
dation responsible for managing the NSFNET project which became the
backbone of the Internet in the U.S. Most Internet traffic at that time
passed over the NSFNET. Wolff too emphasized that pioneers of the
Internet intended openness and universal connectivity. He gave credit to
Chinese Academician Hu Qiheng for championing China’s connectivity
to the Internet in 1994. Madam Hu tells the story that she was prepared
for formal U.S./ China negotiations to arrange China’s connection to
the Internet. She visited the U.S. in April 1994 with that intention. But
she says, at the appointment she had with Wolff, he told her that there is
no problem. In the next few days she heard from her colleagues in
Beijing that the connection has been made, no negotiations, no treaty.
Mme Hu was part of the international collaboration that made the Inter-
net and the spread of the Internet possible. Also, it was often mentioned
at this conference that 2019 was the 25
th
Anniversary of China’s 1994
connection to the Internet. 2019 is also the 50
th
Anniversary of the
ARPANET, forerunner of the Internet. Those anniversaries gave extra
importance to this year’s World Internet Conference.
Ronda made a presentation in the Cyberculture and Youth sub
forum
1
hosted by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth
League and the All-China Youth Federation. It was co-organized by the
China Federation of Internet Societies, China Youth New Media Asso-
ciation and NetEase, Inc. Besides the keynote speakers, there were 18
presenters including from China, Nepal, the U.S., Japan, India, Hong
Kong, and Mexico each with a limit of six minutes for their talks.
The sub forum organizers defined cyberculture as “the com-
pound of new technologies and cultural content as well as the collection
Page 58
of cultural activities, forms, products and ideas in cyberspace.” And
that, “as ‘digital natives,’ young people are being profoundly influenced
by the Internet.” But, besides being a platform for cultural exchange
and mutual learning, cyberspace and cyberculture are venues for youth
innovation and self expression. The value to me of the sub forum was
that it recognized the importance of the Internet to young people and
the importance of the youth everywhere to the Internet and to their soci-
eties. The sub forum aimed to focus on cyber-cultural issues but also to
“encourage young people across the globe to make their contributions
to the development of cyberculture and online exchanges.”
After the Opening Remarks at the sub forum, a spectrum of
viewpoints was expressed in the eighteen 6-minute talks. The first pre-
senter, Zhang Yiwu, Professor, Department of Chinese Language and
Literature, Peking University described how hundreds of millions of
lines of original literature have been created online by Chinese speaking
netizens and spread around the world in Chinese but also in translation.
The spread of this literature gives the world a chance to better know
Chinese thinking and encourages young people to contribute their writ-
ing online. Some of the other speakers talked about aiming their prod-
ucts at online youth, such as Marvel Comics and Pokémon Games.
Many saw the Internet making possible greater participation of the
youth in all aspects of society. Max Trejo, Secretary-General, Interna-
tional Youth Organization for Ibero-America, spoke in Spanish. He saw
that youngsters are creating, fully participating in the production of and
accessing much of the cultural content on the net. They talk with each
other directly and form a bottom-up innovation process, demonstrating
that now ordinary people can have a positive impact on each other, giv-
ing them a sense of ownership of the cyber community. Ronda’s pre-
sentation,
2
broadened the spectrum of the sub forum by seeing youth
and others as not only users but some as citizens of the Internet and of
the world. She told the story of Facebook users in Turkey finding ways
to enhance Turkish-Greek friendship with the mission of diminishing
the historic hostility that is common between the two peoples. She ar-
gued that such activity on the part of netizens of different nations is in-
tended to create a peace communications channel for building peaceful
feelings between different peoples via the netizen contributions to the
Page 59
Internet. The net empowers some people including young people to
adopt a public purpose. They become netizens, citizens of the net.
Mirroring the Internet, a strong purpose of the whole World
Internet Conference and especially of the Cyberculture and Youth sub
forum was the encouragement and deepening of international ex-
changes toward “Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future in
Cyberspace.”
True to this purpose, it was wonderful for Ronda and me to meet
people at the conference from around the world as well as to make new
friends in China. We had great fun with and much help from the
English speaking volunteer guides from Zhejian and Shanghai universi-
ties. Not only were they helpful to non-Chinese speaking attendees like
us, the guides had the valuable experience of interacting with people
from all over the world and using and improving their foreign language
skills. The Shanghai International Studies University (SISU) students
and staff we met were serious, friendly and hard working. We appreci-
ated the special care they took of us.
Our biggest surprise and treasure was to see and say hello to
internet pioneers, some of whom we have met and collaborated with
over the last 25 years. They were from Japan (Jun Mauri and Izumi
Aizu), Korea (Kilnam Chon), Germany (Werner Zorn), France (Louis
Pouzin) and the U.S. (Stephen Wolff and Dave Farber). Mme Hu Qihe-
ng from China did not attend this conference but was praised by Ste-
phen Wolff as a valuable contributor to the Internet’s spread to and in
China. Maybe it could only be in Wuzhen that we would see them all in
one place. Also, the food was fine for all our meals, maybe especially
the student’s lamb and noodle soup we ate in the Scholar Noodle Res-
taurant in the old town part of Wuzhen.
We did get lost sometime but that was minor. One evening
when walking back to our hotel, some local Wuzhen adults encouraged
us to join them in their nightly dance/exercises. It was a fun shared ex-
perience. We especially were happy to hear the speech by Stephen
Wolff in the opening day plenary session because he summarized accu-
rately the history that Ronda, I and our son Michael had studied and
documented in the book Michael and Ronda wrote, Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.
Page 60
Ronda was happy for the opportunity to be part of the Cyber
Culture and Youth Sub Forum. She got some positive feedback after
her speech about netizens as net citizens coming online for public not
just personal or entertainment purposes.
We greatly appreciated this opportunity to visit China again.
Besides attending the conference in Wuzhen, we had a chance to visit
some dear friends in Beijing and Shanghai. I was again impressed how
much Chinese people and American people have in common. Now
home in NYC, I will look for ways to help increase American-Chinese
people’s friendship.
Notes:
1. The program of the Cyberculture and Youth sub forum was posted in English at:
https://service.wicwuzhen.cn/forum/?from=singlemessage#/forum_e_manual?dataId=
338751646689529856&lang=en
2. The text of Ronda’s talk is online at: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/china2019/
Wuzhen-talk-2019.pdf
smith.com/p/ARutG2rFJ. It was likely a paper written while the author
was a masters degree student at the University of the Philippines,
2013-2018.]
Pop Culture and the Rise of Social
Media in the Philippines: An Overview
by Aj Garchitorena
Abstract
It is somewhat amusing that children in their formative years use technology
as though it is a basic necessity for their development. With this statement alone, it is
undeniable that commercial advancement in technology and the facility of the world-
-wide web creates a sort of transcendence in a faster and inclusive way that is not pos-
sible in the physical world. Nevertheless, if this very modern concept, if not an advent
Page 61
of a futuristic one, would be collapsed in the confines of a perspective of a still devel-
oping nation, what would be the outcome?
This study aims to look at the rise of New Media and social media in the
Philippines, as well as its effect on the promotion of popular culture on the media con-
sumers of the country. It will focus on several facets of Philippine contemporary life
such as the political, economic, and social, and connect it with the cultural. By the end
of this paper, there will be predictions regarding the future of the Philippine experi-
ence under these said circumstances should the current state of media in the country
not change, a sort of an analysis that would allow readers to initiate their own intro-
spection regarding media use.
Introduction
According to the Yahoo-Nielsen Survey of 2013, the top three
sources of media consumption in the Philippines come from the televi-
sion, the radio, and the continually rising internet usage. With these me-
dia vehicles, the so-called fourth estate of the government, one can ac-
tually deduce that watching favorite shows on the televison, listening to
radio programs, or even surfing the world-wide web can have political,
social, and economic implications.
This paper, thus, will look at these said implications – the three
interconnected tiers of Philippine life, said above – and connect it with
the popular culture in the Philippines to give an overview to the public
regarding this obvious but unnoticed scene in Philippine media studies.
Specifically, the objectives of this paper are:
1. to dissect the concept of popular culture in the Philippine context and
locate its origin;
2. to connect popular culture to the usage of conventional media such as
television and radio usage, and the rise of and social media or new me-
dia;
3. to locate interlocking concepts regarding popular culture and social
media in the political, economic, and social aspects of everyday Philip-
pine life to somewhat give an overview of the current state of Philip-
pine media studies. One latent objective of the study, however, is to
initiate introspection among the public regarding their usage or personal
consumption of media in their everyday life.
To further give flesh and bone to the paper, the proponent will
primarily use the literature and scholarship of the following authors:
Page 62
1. Bienvenido Lumbera – for popular culture and its origin and implica-
tions
2. Michael Hauben – for the theory of the Netizen and his perspectives
on the individual as a user of social media
3. Herman and Chomsky – on the political-economic implications of
media
4. McCombs and Shaw – for the Agenda-Setting Theory of media and
its implications
5. Graeme Turner – on the democratization of media
Although each author is quite focused on a singular topic, there
are still parts of each that connect with each other, and will be part of
the analysis.
The study is somewhat limited for this will only cover the said
topic in a very macro level and not in a more specific and specialized
way. More so, most literature except Lumbera, are from non-Filipino
authors but they do address the topic in a very universal manner. The
methodology is somewhat limited for it only includes pure archival re-
search, and bias regarding the personal usage of media on the perspec-
tive of the author may also cause further limitation. More so, the media
to be discussed here is the media conglomerate part of Philippine me-
dia, and not the state-owned part for the former is the more evident and
profitable side, while the latter is quite ignored or neglected by the gen-
eral public, and one can say, the government itself.
This study, nevertheless, sets a ground for a new frontier in Phil-
ippine studies research for thus far, social media in the Philippines, ex-
cept for statistical data, seemed to be untouched. No matter how moot
and futile this exercise may seem to some, the author reiterates that
things included in the paper needed to be known by the public in a very
word-of-mouth conversational manner, and even though everything
about the topic of the paper seems obvious, it has always been unno-
ticed and, therefore, should be given the chance to be placed under the
attention and scrutiny of the general public and not only by scholars,
students, or members of the current intelligentsia.
RELATED LITERATURE
Page 63
Popular Culture in the Philippines
“Building a culture has to start with a foundation, and that foun-
dation must necessarily be the culture of the Filipino people if this
could be separated with [from?] the encrustations grown on it by colo-
nial rule.”
Popular culture, according to National Artist for literature
Bienvenido Lumbera in his book Revaluation: Essays on Philippine
Literature, Theater and Popular Culture (1984), is highly different
from the folk culture and nationalist culture of the Filipinos. In a nut-
shell, folk culture is the way of living in a place in a specific time and
portrays the practices of a certain people, and on how they cope to sur-
vive with nature. Nationalist culture is the culture created through colo-
nial resistance with the collective of people on a given place and time.
These two are different from popular culture which can be traced even
in the period of Hispanisation of the Philippines.
According to Lumbera, popular culture in the Philippines was
created and used by the Spaniards to the native Filipinos or Indios via
plays and literature to get the heart of the natives and win it. The colo-
nial origins of popular culture found in the Philippines can be traced by
looking at salient developments in Philippine literature. The first per-
manent Spanish settlement began replacing the native culture with a
Christian and European tradition. The children of the native elite under
the tutelage of missionaries became a core group of intelligentsia called
‘ladinos,’ as they became instrumental “in bringing into the vernacular,
literary forms that were to be vehicles for the ‘pacification’ of the na-
tives.” Forms of popular theater and literature such as “the pasyon,
sinakulo, and korido ensured the acceptance and spread of Christianity,
and the komedya and awit did the same for the monarchy.” Popular cul-
ture as introduced by the Spanish was “popular” to the extent that it was
a “watering-down of Spanish-European culture for the purpose of win-
ning the general populace over to the ‘ideology’ of the colonial
regime.” Popular culture at the time was created by colonial authorities,
with the aid of the local intelligentsia, to promote the interests of the
Church and the State.
However, once the native intelligentsia saw the effects of popu-
lar culture and knew how to work its way as propaganda, they soon
Page 64
used the Spanish weapon against them. In the 19
th
century, through the
Propaganda movement, the native intelligentsia used the same forms of
popular culture to “undermine the power of the abusive friars and rally
the populace to put an end to colonial rule.” One example is the work of
Marcelo H. del Pilar when he soon used prayers such as the ‘Aba,
Ginoong Maria’ and ‘Ama Namin’ in a sort of parody to strike against
the abusive Spanish Friars.
The advent of American colonialism brought, the properly
so-called, popular culture to the Philippines. The liberal policy regard-
ing the printing press, soon through radio, television and film, increased
the circulation of popular culture forms. Not only through these forms
but also in new media then, such as films. Hollywood films had a
near-monopoly in the Philippine market especially in the absence of
European movies due to World War I.
Early on, the local intelligentsia had the same apprehensions
over mass media as they called it commercialization, or vulgarization of
art. According to Lumbera, the local intelligentsia noticed that “Popular
literature as a commodity intended for a mass market was seen to pose
a threat to serious artistic work, because the writers accommodated his
art to the demands of the publishers and editors who were more inter-
ested in sales rather than aesthetics.” More so, “... popular culture is not
created by the populace ... rather, it is culture created either by the rul-
ing elite or by members of the intelligentsia in the employ of that elite,
for the consumption of the populace.”; it is “...‘packaged’ entertainment
or art intended for the profit of rulers, be they colonial administrators or
native bureaucrats and businessmen.”
To see it in Lumbera’s lens, “Popular culture is power, and who-
ever wields it to manipulate minds is likely to find it’s literary and tech-
nological machinery turned against him when the minds it has manipu-
lated discover its potency as a political weapon.”
The Theory of the Netizen and Democratization of Media
The word netizen, though it has been used popularly in current
times, is actually a word from the theory of Michael Hauben (1997) is a
corrupted term from the phrase “Net Citizen.” According to Hauben, as
Page 65
netizens, geographical separation in the actual reality is replaced by
existence in the same virtual space called the internet. More so, along
with the power of using the internet is the power of the reporter given to
the netizen for a netizen could actually be a source of primary informa-
tion regarding certain topics or issues. Hauben profoundly cautions that
the internet can, nevertheless, be a “source of opinion” though he said
that a netizen can train him/her self to discern real from fabricated in-
formation.
This prophecy will soon be reflected in Graeme Turner’s book
called the Demotic Turn (2010) but in a certain extreme way for even
news reports are often bent to suit the “infotainment” genre favored by
the general audience. According to Turner, there is a rise of opinionated
news as reporters tend to bend the news to the stories they often favor.
A concrete example of this is tabloidization, or sensationalising small
news items and making a big deal out of such.
The Agenda-Setting Theory
The Agenda-Setting theory of McCombs and Shaw (1972) can
be simplified by saying that media influences people to focus its atten-
tion on something under a certain agenda. It can make people think that
something is actually happening when something is not, or give special
attention or focus on certain subjects or topics and hype it to make an
impression that something big is going on. To give an example, the
agenda-setting theory can be seen in a newspaper wherein the headline
is supposed to be the biggest news there is, and the other items, de-
creasing in font size and the farther its location from the front page, the
lesser priority it has. Similarly, in a news program, wherein the reporter
or news anchor gives too much air time to a certain news, or depending
on the arrangement of the news items, the more pressing issue it is. This
theory can also be applied in the radio, or on new media such as the
internet.
The Political-Economy of Media
According to Hermann and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model
(1988), a model they have used to check the various political-economic
Page 66
implications of mass media, there are several filters to use in relation
with the topic to check the propaganda machine of mass media.
These filters are the following:
1. The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, profit orientation of
the different mass media firms
2. Advertising as the primary income source of mass media
3. The reliance of the media on the information provided by the govern-
ment, business, and these “experts” funded and approved by such
sources and agents of power
Note that there are also two more filters (“Flak” as means of
disciplining the media, anti-communism as a national religion and con-
trol mechanism) but that would be irrelevant with the current study.
Analysis
The proponent, especially based on the history and origin of
popular culture in the Philippines, attributes the rise of popular culture
to such technologies like the television, radio, and the internet, and the
popularization of the said technologies because of the usage of such in
the everyday culture. Nevertheless, the seemingly innocent usage or
consumption of media in different ways beholds power in its interstices.
This paper, as mentioned will look at three tiers on how media
spreads popular culture, and affects the aspects of Filipino life such as
the political, economic, and the social.
Political-Economic Aspect
The easier to figure out among the three is the economic. Ac-
cording to Lumbera, popular culture in the rise of technologies like the
television and the radio, soon deteriorated the notion of art and made it
appear that it is consumable and a commodity. He called it, as he said,
according to other artists of the time, vulgarization of art. He meant that
art forms were popularized by the use of technology and were tailor-fit
to exactly serve the taste of the greater audience, sacrificing its quality
in the process. This phenomena or grievance, if one may call it, can also
be seen in Turner’s argument regarding the rise of infotainment.
Infotainment is the trend of making an issue seemingly pressing enough
Page 67
to give an ample or little new information, but more so, entertainment
to the public.
According to the Yahoo-Nielsen 2013 Survey, infotainment is
one of the most searched contents and sites most visited in the Philip-
pines. This meant a lot of irrelevant news we see on the television or
internet that can be dismissed as a fad but were given the limelight to
amuse people, and people seem to buy it. Just look at websites like Ya-
hoo, itself, for it offers a lot of interesting articles which may seem to
catch the interest of the public but also to cross-promote.
Cross-promotion is a term referring to the promotion of an ad-
vertisement in a very subtle way inside another program, or the like.
Aside from acknowledging that the reason why there is this so-called
“vulgarization of the art” and the “rise of infotainment” to attract adver-
tisers to advertise in commercial breaks during television or radio
shows, or popping-up in the websites, cross-promotion has been a wide
practice and people can actually sense it but not look it straight in the
eye. Imagine watching a movie and seeing a product endorsement of
the main protagonist being used in it, say coffee, and he or she prepares
and drinks the coffee in one of the scenes – that is cross-promotion. The
latent or subtle manifestation of endorsing products. Even in the
internet, there are a lot of articles planted just to make an advertisement
and these are often the infotainment ones. Even video games have
cross-promoting activities, or even radio jockeys do it in a very conver-
sational and suave manner. For lots of years, cross-promotion has been
commonly practiced, but the problem does not end there.
Cross-promoting activities in various media platforms cannot
always be subtle, for there many now with explicit exercise of such, and
in connection with Lumbera’s sacrificing the art grievance, it can al-
ready be seen that media does not proliferate art, or material with high
value but sacrifices all these, even the content, form, and quality of
popular culture just to use it as an advertisement as an example, a whole
dialogue or story plot can be twisted, to bend, bow and scrape to the
demands of the main benefactor – product endorsements.
Socio-Political Aspect
Page 68
It was a common saying that whoever has command of the eco-
nomic power also wields the political. In the study of pop culture and
Philippine media, one can already see that the economic and political
aspects were highly mutual conditions that are beneficial to each other.
This statement is logical for, according to Herman and Chomsky, media
really gets all the income from advertisements and whoever has the big-
ger sponsorship gets the media attention, or programs will be bent ac-
cording to how their product endorsement vis-a-vis cross-promotion
would fit.
It is important to notice, however, that media’s power does not
only reside on the economic, but also to the monopoly of sources, as
cited also by Herman and Chomsky. There are limited sources by which
media can get information, and with it, they control – government, busi-
nesses, and the like – whatever is going in and out of the information
tube.
More over, one must also check the relation of media to its audi-
ence. Because of popular culture, media is actually used to create a cer-
tain agenda on its viewers, and the resulting relationship is a political
one wherein the one controlling here is the media company or institu-
tion. According to McCombs and Shaw’s Agenda-Setting Theory, me-
dia can make us think about something by conditioning our minds in a
very latent manner, most especially through salience. It means that if
ever the media company wants you to think about a political stand or
buying that special perfume, they will do it in repetition and via
cross-promotion using several advertising techniques. Surveys such as
Nielsen give the media companies an idea what formula would work on
a sellable television show, or the like. This can be equivocal with the
idea that the “naked” news in several western news companies are cre-
ated not because they need people to watch news, but also to make
them watch and earn their share in the advertising arena. One can argue
that some news articles can be imaginary or bloated to be
sensationalized and news-worthy. Thus, media, through its influences,
indirectly commands the people to behave the way that is favorable to
them.
Page 69
This argument, however, is rapidly changing through leverage,
for there is a thing called media democratization and that is connected
with the rise of social media.
To break the monopoly of media conglomerates on the informa-
tion flow can be attributed with the democratization of media via the
internet. Michael Hauben’s theory of the Netizen, when he coined the
term in the late 1990's imagined the world’s physical limits collapsed
via the faster streaming of information and communication via the
internet, and true enough, the effect is limitless and transcendental –
quite a benchmark of a 21
st
century high technology. Hauben also imag-
ined the democratizing power of media, for everyone can voice out
their ideas via the internet, but this can only be achieved if everyone in
the society, even those in the margins, can be given the chance to voice
out their ideas.
In the Philippines, the internet usage penetration is more than 30
percent as of 2012, and is continuously rising (Yahoo-Nielsen, 2013).
According to the same survey, more Filipinos use tablets and mobile
phones to access the internet, and with the rise of smart phones in the
country, we can assume that the projected number can be rising expo-
nentially. However, the democratization of media, even if away from
Hauben’s ideal 100% penetration in the society, is still evident in the
society, and this is via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twit-
ter, Instagram, and the like. Among the three, Facebook, is the
widely-used platform (Yahoo-Nielsen, 2013).
Public opinion rises from these sites, proliferation of liberal
ideas happen especially in the Philippines for the government never
censors the content though there was an attempt in the Cyber-crime
law. The agenda and capability seemed to prove its political worth in
the Philippines last September 2013 when, as though an Arab or Persian
Spring that were so-called Twitter or Facebook Revolution, through the
facilitation of social media, many Filipinos all around the Philippines
and the world joined a simultaneous protest they called the “Million
People March” (Garchitorena, 2013).
In everyday life, one can see the leverage done by media con-
glomerates in the social media scene by making an account for famous
reporters and television or radio channels so that they can also make
Page 70
real-time broadcasting simultaneous with the real-time updates of social
media information dissemination (Garchitorena, 2013). This is soon
proved to be beneficial when media companies make news out of public
opinion often found in tweets or posts in social media sites, as predicted
earlier on through the rise of talk radios (Turner, 2010). There are even
portions wherein mere viewers, through mobile devices, are made to
report on a first-hand account of a storm surge or anything, and send the
clip via internet instead of sending a real and trained reporter to check
out the situation. This phenomena, will, nevertheless, prove to be bene-
ficial if Hauben’s theory of a democratized society, via the internet
wherein all people are given access, plus the required training to voice
their selves out as Netizens, would materialize.
Conclusion
To summarize the paper, popular culture was first introduced
and given flesh and bone through the study of Lumbera. It will be the
foundation of the media we see today, and it fleshed out reasons why
media commands economic, political, and social power in the Philip-
pines. Through several media theories, it was shown that in media’s
main goal via the proliferation of pop culture creates a commercialized
world as it generated income through advertisements, and whoever
commands economic power commands the political, as well. Media
companies can also facilitate pop culture to make their audience behave
the way they would be favorable to them, also because they monopolize
the information stream. This can also be countered with the democrati-
zation of media through the facilitation of social networking sites and
by projecting ideas as a netizen on the internet. This may cause lever-
age but may not completely achieve its full potential for full democrati-
zation can be done if all people in the society can gain full access with
the said technology. It may also have down effects for media companies
can use Netizens as primary sources of information, as though “empow-
ering” them. This can also be countered with education if the public on
how to use social media that would benefit them.
“Popular culture is power, and whoever wields it to manipulate
minds is likely to find its literary and technological machinery turned
Page 71
against him when the minds it has manipulated discover its potency as a
political weapon.” (Lumbera, 1984)
The future of social media’s political, economic, and social facility as
a tool, or a weapon, against media conglomerates and the advertising machin-
ery, or the government or any institutional agenda may still be achieved if the
general public, especially those in the margins who were always victimized by
the false images shown through media, should discover and use its full poten-
tial.
Bibliography
Aj Garchitorena, Picnic in the Park: The Role of Social Media as a Precursor of a So-
cial Movement and a Facilitator in the Million People. March, 2013.
Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet. IEEE Computer Society Press. 1997.
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Econ-
omy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books. 1988.
Bienvenido Lumbera. Revaluation: Essays on Philippine Literature, Cinema, and
Popular Culture. 1984.
Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. “The agenda-setting function of mass media.”
Public Opinion Quarterly. Volume 36, Issue 2. pp. 176–187. 1972.
Graeme Turner. Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. SAGE Publica-
tions. 2010.
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.
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 72
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:
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.
Page 73
