Common Sense: The Net and Netizens Part I/III

70 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Hauben

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 3:01:13 AM7/6/93
to
Beginning in March, I started research by posting to Usenet,
Freenet, and some mailing lists. In response to my inquiries
about the uses people have found about the Net I received many
enthusiastic replies. This data demonstrates that the Net
substancially improves people's everyday lives. This impact is
possible only via the open access to the Net. Any
commercialization will make such access more restrictive or
controlled. Hopefully this paper and other people's hard work can
help strengthen people to defend the public access to the Net.

Currently this paper is in draft form and I would much
appreciate any comments or criticisms.

As this paper is long it will be split into several posts.

THE NET AND NETIZENS: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives


I. PREFACE

Welcome to the 21st Century. You are a Netizen (Net
Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the
global connectivity that the Net gives you. You consider everyone as
your compatriot. You physically live in one country but you are in
contact with much of the world via the global computer network.
Virtually you live next door to every other single netizen in the
world. Geographical separation is replaced by 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, Usenet, BITNET, VMSnet, FIDOnet, and so
on - has rapidly grown to cover all of the developed countries in
the world. The only parts of the world yet to be connected via
E-mail are parts of Africa, Asia Minor, and South East Asia. (See
the Internet Society NEWS Vol 2 No 1 back page for reference.)
Everyday more computers attach to the existing networks and every
new computer adds to the user base - at least ten million people are
interconnected today. Why do all these people "waste" their time
sitting in front of a computer typing away? They have very good
reason to! Ten million people plus can not be wrong.
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 my life." The Net seems to
open a new lease on life for people. Social connections which never
before were possible, or relatively hard to achieve, are now much
more accessible, by those on the Net.
A new world of connections between people - either privately
from individual to individual or publicly from individuals to the
collective mass of many on the net is possible. The old model of
distribution of information is from the central Network Broadcasting
Company to everyone else. This is the top-down model of decisions of
what information is made by a few distributed for mass-consumption.
Rather a person has the ability to broadcast his or her ideas and
questions around the world and people respond. The computer networks
form a new grassroots connection that allows the excluded sections
of society to have a voice. This new media is unprecedented.
Previous grassroots media have existed for much smaller sized
selections of people. The model of the Net proves the old way does
not have to be the way of networking. The Net does not abolish the
idea of networking - or making connections with strangers that prove
to be advantages to one or both parties.
This complete connection of the body of citizens of the
world does not exisit as of today, and it will definitely be a fight
to make access to the Net open and available to all. However, in the
future we might be seeing the possible expansion of what it means to
be a social animal. Practically every single individual on the Net
today is available to every other person on the Net. Someone might
suggest this universal connection exists with the telephone network
today. However the telephone companies charge more for the further
you have to call. Use of the Net is currently unmetered.
International connection coexists on the same level with local
connection. Also the computer networks allow a more advanced
connection between the people who are communicating.
While you need to know a person's name to locate their
telephone number, or perhaps you may have received the number from
them personally. With computer-communication systems, 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.
Connections not before possible, imaginable or feasible,
whether global (across the world) or just around the corner
(locally) are now happening everyday.

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 followup 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. Many
people who replied to my "Is the Net a Source of Social/Econ.
Wealth?" post responded to my point calling the net a source of
accurate information. People corrected me and said it was also a
source of opinions. However, the reader can train himself to figure
out the accurate information from the breadth of opinions. I hoped
to give an example of this by grouping a wide sample of the answers
I got to my research together in one document. The Net can be a
helpful medium to understand the world. Only by seeing all points of
view can anyone attempt to figure out their position on a topic.

Information, and thus people, are coming alive. Netizens can
interact with other people to help add to or alter that information.
Information is no longer a fixed commodity or source 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
collectivity from the origins of human society. Netizens working
together continual expand the store of information worldwide. One
person called the Net an untapped resource because it provides 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. Every user of the Net
gains the role of being special and useful. The fact that every user
has his own opinions and interests adds to the general body of
specialized knowledge on the Net. Each Netizen thus becomes a
special valuable resource to the Net. Each user contributes to the
whole intellectual and social value and possibilities of the Net.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Hauben CC '95 | E-mail me for sample copies of |
| hau...@cs.columbia.edu | The Amateur Computerist Newsletter |
| hau...@columbia.edu | & read the alt.amateur-comp newsgroup |

Christopher Davis

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 12:33:09 PM7/6/93
to
MH> == Michael Hauben <hau...@cs.columbia.edu>

MH> Beginning in March, I started research by posting to Usenet, Freenet,
MH> and some mailing lists. In response to my inquiries about the uses
MH> people have found about the Net I received many enthusiastic replies.
MH> This data demonstrates that the Net substancially improves people's
MH> everyday lives. This impact is possible only via the open access to
MH> the Net. Any commercialization will make such access more restrictive
MH> or controlled. Hopefully this paper and other people's hard work can
MH> help strengthen people to defend the public access to the Net.

MH> Currently this paper is in draft form and I would much
MH> appreciate any comments or criticisms.

Simply put, commercialization is not the evil bugbear you make it out to
be; the "restrictive" and "controlled" portions of the net are the
*government-funded* sections, rather than the emerging commercial
providers.

At this moment, computer users in Chicago, Boston, New York City, Seattle,
and the San Francisco area (among others) can reach commercial
public-access Internet sites with a local call. These sites, with quite
reasonable rates (for example, the World's $20/mo for 20 hours), allow
anyone to get access to the Internet's resources, including USENET, gopher,
ftp, WAIS, the World Wide Web, IRC, and so forth.

ftp.uu.net, which is run by a commercial network provider, is one of the
largest FTP archives available, and (unlike many other popular archives)
never seems to give a "too full, try again later" message.

"[D]efend[ing] the public['s] access to the Net" is best done by making it
easier and less expensive to get access. Note that at least one commercial
provider offers 56Kb/s service anywhere in the US, with the customer paying
only the local loop between their site and the nearest Sprint/WilTel
location, rather than the full loop charges to the provider's nearest
router.

Later in your paper, you quote:

MH> From: KIERAN CLULOW

MH> "the internet access provided me by the university has greatly
MH> facilitated my ability to both use and programme computers and this
MH> has had the direct result of improving my grades as well as gaining me
MH> a good job in the computer field.

MH> long live the internet

MH> (and make it possible for private citizens to get access!)"

Note that the universities of the world rarely offer individual access,
even to their own alumni.
--
* Christopher Davis * <c...@eff.org> * <c...@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
"Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repost it every month,
with diffs marked with change bars." --Ed Vielmetti <e...@msen.com>

Bill Oliver

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 1:13:03 PM7/6/93
to
In article <CKD.93Ju...@loiosh.eff.org> c...@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>Simply put, commercialization is not the evil bugbear you make it out to
>be; the "restrictive" and "controlled" portions of the net are the
>*government-funded* sections, rather than the emerging commercial
>providers.
>

Hmmm... Are you sure about that? Do you really consider Prodigy's policy
of reading and censoring both public postings and private email less restrictive
or controlled than the internet? I think you will be hard put to find a large,
diverse private network with the freedom of internet.

Bill Oliver

Christopher Davis

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 3:29:44 PM7/6/93
to
BO> == Bill Oliver <oli...@cs.unc.edu>

ckd> Simply put, commercialization is not the evil bugbear you make it out
ckd> to be; the "restrictive" and "controlled" portions of the net are the
ckd> *government-funded* sections, rather than the emerging commercial
ckd> providers.

BO> Hmmm... Are you sure about that? Do you really consider Prodigy's
BO> policy of reading and censoring both public postings and private email
BO> less restrictive or controlled than the internet? I think you will be
BO> hard put to find a large, diverse private network with the freedom of
BO> internet.

The Internet *is* a large, diverse, and (mostly) private network.

Prodigy is not an Internet service provider; even if they ever manage to
get their email gateway up and running (an event I'm not bothering to hold
my breath waiting for), they still won't be an Internet service provider.

I might point out that the network UNC is attached via, CONCERT, has
commercial pricing available. To quote from CONCERT.services, found on
ftp.concert.net: "CONCERT-CONNECT provides four types of connections priced
for either Education and Research (E/R) or Commercial (COM) usage."

Certainly the NSFNET Acceptable Use Policy, while generally unenforced, and
recently "moderated", is more restrictive and controlling than the CIX
"acceptable use policy":

1. Members agree not to restrict the use of their network based on traffic
type, subject only to applicable laws. This provision removes commercial
constraints imposed by the use of government funding for networking.

Aryeh Friedman

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 4:32:39 PM7/6/93
to

How about netcom? PSI? ANS CO+RE? I agree with you that "information
services" (oxymoron) don't offer much access but there are a number of
companies out there commited to public access (matter of fact it is there
only business).

st...@rosie.uh.edu

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 5:33:56 PM7/6/93
to

Prodigy is a bunch of buffoons! They also don't offer full access to the
net. One "large diverse private network with the freedom of internet" is
Alternet. Thay may also be known as UUnet if you are non-commercial. Also,
PSIcom, and ANS CO+RE. ANS CO+RE is what used to be NSFnet. They offor
commercial access. Then there are the regionals. Cerf in California.
Sesqunet in Texas... Commercial internet access is what will SAVE the
internet. It will give low cost internet access to everyone. I can think of 3
ways to get a commercial account here in Houston, and for under $50 a month...
I think you aught to redo some research. Look up HoloNET, Delphi, PSIcom,
Alternet, and ANS CO+RE. They ALL offor internet access commercially.

Lee Sharp
st...@jetson.uh.edu

Cameron Laird

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 3:06:47 PM7/6/93
to
In article <21cbq...@bodie.cs.unc.edu> oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
.
.
.
Mr. Davis' point, I believe, is that much of the Internet
*is* private, in the sense you're using it here. Prodigy
is a for-profit organization, and many of us do consider
it "restrictive or controlled"; however, the node from
which I'm posting now is also a for-profit organization,
and as far from censorship as anyone could ask. My
monthly subscription fee is a great deal.
--

Cameron Laird
cla...@Neosoft.com (claird%Neoso...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
cla...@litwin.com (claird%litwi...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546

Bill Oliver

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 5:51:48 PM7/6/93
to
In article <CKD.93Ju...@loiosh.eff.org> c...@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>
>Prodigy is not an Internet service provider; even if they ever manage to
>get their email gateway up and running (an event I'm not bothering to hold
>my breath waiting for), they still won't be an Internet service provider....
>


OK, I see the difference you are talking about.


Never mind.


Bill "adanadana" Oliver

Ron Asbestos Dippold

unread,
Jul 6, 1993, 6:26:43 PM7/6/93
to
st...@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:
>commercial access. Then there are the regionals. Cerf in California.
>Sesqunet in Texas... Commercial internet access is what will SAVE the
>internet. It will give low cost internet access to everyone. I can think of 3
>ways to get a commercial account here in Houston, and for under $50 a month...

Yeah, we (San Diego) have Usenet for free, Internet for $10 or $20 a
month, to anyone with a modem. As far as censorship goes, I've never
been censored, even though I've posted what some might consider
questionable things - there was even a semicampaign after I refused to
take someone's victimization claims seriously. If we look in the
groups where this sort of thing is discussed, the censorship comes
from two main places: .edu sites (the majority) and government (the
big NASA purge). I recall a few commercial account losses:

* a guy at IBM lost his access for posting internal
distribution only information to the comp.sys.os2 groups.
* someone at AT&T lost his access for posting confidential
customer information to comp.dcom.telecom.
* recently, someone at Microsoft lost his access. This is
being hotly debated, but it appears the big hangup was the lack of
disclaimer on some inflamitory postings.

The first two are quite defensible (even the original posters later
said that given their actions they didn't have a whole lot of
complaint). On the last, I haven't seen the postings, and it's being
debated, but given some of the things I've seen posted from
microsoft.com, it's interesting to speculate on them. OTOH, those
other postings had disclaimers as required in the employee handbook.


--
My body isn't a temple, it's an amusement park.

The Wolfe of the Den

unread,
Jul 7, 1993, 7:26:15 PM7/7/93
to
Mike,
Here are a few comments....

In <C9qE6...@cs.columbia.edu> hau...@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:
>THE NET AND NETIZENS: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives
>
> I. PREFACE
> Welcome to the 21st Century. You are a Netizen (Net
>Citizen), and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the
>global connectivity that the Net gives you. You consider everyone as
>your compatriot. You physically live in one country but you are in
>contact with much of the world via the global computer network.
>Virtually you live next door to every other single netizen in the
>world. Geographical separation is replaced by existence in the same
>virtual space.

Presuming there is a "one world" governance structure, and that
the net is an integral part of that structure, then I'll grant the use
of the term "Net Citizen" some validity.

If you mean to imply that the net *itself* constitutes a
democratic self-governing entity, then I'll take strong exception to the
use of the term.

The governance structures of the net are *not* democratic (nor
are they autocratic or any other form of hierarchic structure.) This
is a cooperative *AN*archy, perhaps the only one that has functioned for
more than 1 year in the history of the world.

>Everyday more computers attach to the existing networks and every
>new computer adds to the user base - at least ten million people are
>interconnected today. Why do all these people "waste" their time
>sitting in front of a computer typing away? They have very good
>reason to! Ten million people plus can not be wrong.

This is not a logical statment, it is an expression of your
opinion. It could be very easy for 10,000,000+ people to be "wrong" in
some sense of the word. All it takes is to select a point of view in
such a way as to make them appear "wrong."

> 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 my life." The Net seems to
>open a new lease on life for people. Social connections which never
>before were possible, or relatively hard to achieve, are now much
>more accessible, by those on the Net.

Social connections? Interpersonal connections, but until the
Net becomes a ubiquitous presence in the lives of *everyone* it will not
be a true social presence. Even then, it will be a social force only
if it is used in the actual activities of daily interaction.

> This complete connection of the body of citizens of the
>world does not exisit as of today, and it will definitely be a fight
>to make access to the Net open and available to all. However, in the
>future we might be seeing the possible expansion of what it means to
>be a social animal. Practically every single individual on the Net
>today is available to every other person on the Net. Someone might
>suggest this universal connection exists with the telephone network
>today. However the telephone companies charge more for the further
>you have to call. Use of the Net is currently unmetered.

Two errors here. First, there are large numbers of folks who
have access to *some* network services who do not have access to *all*
of the services that would make them available on a person-to-person
basis. There are plenty of folks who can read news, but don't have
access to email *per se*
Second, there are plenty of connection methods that do meter the
network activity and charge for the amount consumed. It is only the
american model that provides the apparently "free" connectivity you
speak of.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]

Bernie Cosell

unread,
Jul 7, 1993, 8:03:01 PM7/7/93
to
In article <rdippold.741997603@qualcom>, Ron "Asbestos" Dippold writes:

}.... As far as censorship goes, I've never


} been censored, even though I've posted what some might consider

} questionable things ... I recall a few commercial account losses:


}
} * a guy at IBM lost his access for posting internal
} distribution only information to the comp.sys.os2 groups.
} * someone at AT&T lost his access for posting confidential
} customer information to comp.dcom.telecom.
} * recently, someone at Microsoft lost his access. This is
} being hotly debated, but it appears the big hangup was the lack of
} disclaimer on some inflamitory postings.

You're misstating the case here. There are not just three types of
accounts in the sense you're using: edu, gov, and commercial, but *four*:
you have to separate commercial accounts from **BUSINESS** accounts.
The former are accounts from folks in the business of providing access
and the account-holder is a *customer*; the latter are accounts provided
by an employer on an employer's machine for the express purpose of
doing the employer's business, whatever it might be. All of your
examples of account losses were relating to misuse of *business*
accounts.

Dunno of anyone losing an account at a real 'commercial' site, although
I guess I have heard about a few net.outcasts who got kicked off a
system [weren't there one or two who managed to get kicked off of cup?]

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell cos...@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358

Eric J. Olson

unread,
Jul 8, 1993, 12:55:57 PM7/8/93
to
In article <C9qE6...@cs.columbia.edu> hau...@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:

> Ten million people plus can not be wrong.

How many of them are French?

Eric Olson <e...@kaja.gi.alaska.edu>
"(and you should always look locally before posting a question that
will end up on tens of thousands of computers all over the world)"
--Sean Ryan

Richard M. Hartman

unread,
Jul 8, 1993, 2:42:40 PM7/8/93
to
In article <C9tIF...@wolves.Durham.NC.US> ne...@wolves.Durham.NC.US (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>Mike,
> Here are a few comments....
>
>In <C9qE6...@cs.columbia.edu> hau...@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:
>>THE NET AND NETIZENS: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives
>>
>>Everyday more computers attach to the existing networks and every
>>new computer adds to the user base - at least ten million people are
>>interconnected today. Why do all these people "waste" their time
>>sitting in front of a computer typing away? They have very good
>>reason to! Ten million people plus can not be wrong.
>
> This is not a logical statment, it is an expression of your
>opinion. It could be very easy for 10,000,000+ people to be "wrong" in
>some sense of the word. All it takes is to select a point of view in
>such a way as to make them appear "wrong."

Oh don't be so harsh! Maybe we all SHOULD be Red Chinese! :-)

>>open a new lease on life for people. Social connections which never
>>before were possible, or relatively hard to achieve, are now much
>>more accessible, by those on the Net.
>
> Social connections? Interpersonal connections, but until the
>Net becomes a ubiquitous presence in the lives of *everyone* it will not
>be a true social presence. Even then, it will be a social force only
>if it is used in the actual activities of daily interaction.

It does not have to be a social "force" in order to provide social
connections. As it is, many people meet, become friends & even get
married due to social connections formed electronically. I have to
give him this one.

>>today. However the telephone companies charge more for the further
>>you have to call. Use of the Net is currently unmetered.
>

> Second, there are plenty of connection methods that do meter the
>network activity and charge for the amount consumed. It is only the
>american model that provides the apparently "free" connectivity you
>speak of.

What "american model"? When we got our UUCP feed from UUnet a couple
of years ago we certainly paid for traffic volume. That's why we're
using Netcom now. (To be fair, I think that UUnet may have altered
their pricing structure since then...)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Blasting, bursting, billowing forth with |
the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes, | -Richard Hartman
Man, with his flaming fire, | har...@uLogic.COM
has conquered the wayword breezes. |

Robert Nesius

unread,
Jul 9, 1993, 1:07:40 AM7/9/93
to
In article <C9tIF...@wolves.Durham.NC.US> ne...@wolves.Durham.NC.US (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>Mike,
> Here are a few comments....
>
>In <C9qE6...@cs.columbia.edu> hau...@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:
>>THE NET AND NETIZENS: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives
>>
>
>> 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 my life." The Net seems to
>>open a new lease on life for people. Social connections which never
>>before were possible, or relatively hard to achieve, are now much
>>more accessible, by those on the Net.
>
> Social connections? Interpersonal connections, but until the
>Net becomes a ubiquitous presence in the lives of *everyone* it will not
>be a true social presence. Even then, it will be a social force only
>if it is used in the actual activities of daily interaction.

I'll grant you that the net is yet to be a social influence on the national
level, but for many people hanging on to life by a thread, sustaining
themselves with Doritos and Sugar for days on end playing various forms
of games(muds, etc...), the net is the only social connection they've got.
IMHO, these people are indicitive of what the future could be like, although
not quite as drastic.

As you said though, it has a ways to go.


my $0.02


|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Robert Nesius -- hol...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu a.k.a. Rob, Bob, etc.|
|Remember, if it wasn't for Macintosh, pc fans would not have windows. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus. Copy me into your .sig and join the fun!

Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner

unread,
Jul 11, 1993, 6:47:33 PM7/11/93
to
I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
would want to be known as one. I don't.

We need some clever marketing types to come up with a better term.

Scott

Robert Nesius

unread,
Jul 12, 1993, 1:53:12 PM7/12/93
to

How about 'Net Denzions'?
'Netheads'?
'a bunch of nice people'?
'Netters'
'Future leaders of the world, conquest is immenent'?


just some suggestions. 'netizen' does sound like something out of
'A Brave New World'. ;)

Rob

Joshua Edward Barnes

unread,
Jul 12, 1993, 1:35:37 PM7/12/93
to
In article <21q5a5$d...@balsam.unca.edu> mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu
(Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better word?


Howza 'bout -- "netnick"?

Cheers,

Josh Barnes

bar...@zeno.ifa.hawaii.edu

Glenn Wyne

unread,
Jul 12, 1993, 3:42:54 PM7/12/93
to
|> In article <21q5a5$d...@balsam.unca.edu> mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu
|> (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
|> I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better word?

I don't see anything particularly objectionable about "netizens", but wonder
if anyone has mentioned "netlanders" or "webheads". My favorites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g...@cco.caltech.edu ||| Glenn Wyne
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Shanks

unread,
Jul 12, 1993, 3:39:56 PM7/12/93
to
In article <CA2CC...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> fr...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Nesius) writes:
>In article <21q5a5$d...@balsam.unca.edu> mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>>would want to be known as one. I don't.
>>
>>We need some clever marketing types to come up with a better term.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>
> How about 'Net Denzions'?
> 'Netheads'?
> 'a bunch of nice people'?
> 'Netters'
> 'Future leaders of the world, conquest is immenent'?
>
>
Or: "Netwits"
"Netians"
"Netsters"
"Netites"
"Net Crawlers"
"Net Ready For Prime Time Players"

:)

Mark Shanks

Larry W. Virden

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 1:16:20 AM7/13/93
to
I would guess that the popular press would prefer 'net geeks' ...
--
:s
:s Larry W. Virden INET: lvi...@cas.org
:s Personal: 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614

Bill Moore

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 12:35:05 PM7/13/93
to
In article <21q5a5$d...@balsam.unca.edu> mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
The Net Set? Net Heads?
--
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Moore bi...@indirect.com P.O. Box 37031, Phoenix, Az 85069
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rodrigo A. SEPULVEDA SCHULZ

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 2:54:35 PM7/13/93
to


My 2 cent of seriousness ;^>

I like the term Netizen (sounds more like Citizen Kane
than Brave Bew World, but what's wrong with being an
Alpha ? ;-)

Netter is not bad too.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo A. SEPULVEDA SCHULZ E.P.I.T.A., Paris, FRANCE
(++)(33-1) 40.09.70.23 / 40.38.05.81 Email: sepu...@epita.fr
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Burley

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 10:56:45 AM7/13/93
to
In article <1993Jul13.1...@indirect.com> bi...@indirect.com (Bill Moore) writes:

The Net Set? Net Heads?

How about the fact that "net" isn't the only term to describe the
electronic landscape? Consider the following terms:

Cybernauts (like Cyberspace Astronauts)
Cyberneers (Pioners of Cyberspace)
Cyberigines (Natives in Cyberspace)
Cyberzens (Citizens of Cyberspace)
Cyberians (People of Cyberspace, aka of Cyberia)
Cyberspuds (Potatoheads of Cyberspace)
Cyberphiliacs (Lovers of Cyberspace)
Cyberleys (My Followers in Cyberspace)
Cyberthugs (Criminals in Cyberspace)
Cyberengis (Greedy Capitalist Pigs in Cyberspace)
Cyberzoids (Wimpy Touchy-Feely Types in Cyberspace)
Cybernerds (Nerds Even in Cyberspace)
Cyberdweebs (Dweebs " " ")
Cybergeeks (Geeks " " ")
Cyberps (Hiccups in Cyberspace)
Cyberserkers (Crazy Vikings in Cyberspace)
Cyberbunnies (Things in Cyberspace that just keep going and going and...)
Cyberchips (Munchies in Cyberspace)
Cyberdales (Male Exotice Dancers in Cyberspace)
Cybernegger, Arnold (Over-Hyped Action Star in Cyberspace)
Cyberdudes (Cyberspace Surfer Dudes)
Cybermentalists (Fanatics Who Tell Everyone How to Behave in Cyberspace)
Cybergnostics (Cyberspace Residents Who Question the Existence of ARPA)
Cybertholics (Believe in the Cyberspace Trinity: The Language, The Code,
and The Holy Net)
Cybertestants (believe everyone should be able to read the Ancient RFCs)
Cyberms (followers of rms)
Cyberms Scientists (A sect of Cyberms, don't believe in doctoring the
output but that the code fixes itself)
Cybrews (believe the Ancient RFCs but not in rms)
Cybrews For rms (nobody understands these people)
Cybervah's Witnesses (randomly email people in pairs asking them
if they are happy with their news feed)

Serious :-)

--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) l...@uunet.uu.net

Curt Tilmes

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 5:58:41 PM7/13/93
to
In article <21q5a5$d...@balsam.unca.edu>, Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner (mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu) wrote:
>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>would want to be known as one. I don't.

I think that stands for "Denizens of the Network"..

"netizen".

Curt

Ron Asbestos Dippold

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 6:45:30 PM7/13/93
to
mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>would want to be known as one. I don't.

I consider myself a netsurfer.
--
Not all men who drink are poets. Some of us drink because we are not poets.

Jenny Lynne Gagne

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 11:21:43 PM7/13/93
to
In article <rdippold.742603530@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>>would want to be known as one. I don't.
>
>I consider myself a netsurfer.

I myself prefer the term "NetRunner" which sounds very dangerous, dashing,
and romantic and probably would make a terrific title for a big budget
hollywood movie with lots of ILM computer graphics effects (produced by
Steven Speilburg, starring Danney Aielo as The Hacker, coming soon to a
theatre near you).

Alright, so it's not the best, but it's not as nerdy as "Netizen". :-)

On with the bandwidth wasting but very amusing thread!

peter da silva

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 3:33:22 PM7/13/93
to
Netter or net.people .
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Na sema Jambo mbwa kali yake leo?"

Kendall Gelner

unread,
Jul 13, 1993, 11:55:13 PM7/13/93
to
In article <rdippold.742603530@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>>would want to be known as one. I don't.
>
>I consider myself a netsurfer.

I think a possibly more accurate term for many would be:

Net Slave
Net Addict
Net Craver

Would someone fortelling the future on the net be "Net Prophet"?

>--
>Not all men who drink are poets. Some of us drink because we are not poets.

--
---> Kendall Gelner (ken...@neosoft.com)
The real goal of AI is to make computers act like the ones in the movies.

Chris_...@vos.stratus.com

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 10:54:02 AM7/14/93
to
: Or Jacques Cousteau. "Ah yes we are dezending to a depth of 300 feet on our
leetle zubmarine. Over on the left we zee the Great Barrier Reef. Aha!
I see a school of sea netizens busily at work communicating with each other..."

Cliff M Williams

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 3:51:40 PM7/14/93
to
I prefer Cybrarian.

--
=================================================================
800-729-4491 or 601-831-3045 <=== 24 hour voice mail and fax
Preferred Electronic Mail Address: 76256...@Compuserve.com
=================================================================

Christopher Lee Cavender

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 5:36:55 PM7/14/93
to
In article <rdippold.742603530@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>mcm...@canton.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>>I object to the term "netizen" -- can you not think of ANY better
>>word? It sounds awful, it looks awful, and I don't think anyone
>>would want to be known as one. I don't.
>
>I consider myself a netsurfer.

I like this one. I always described my self as an info-surfer (even though
I have NO idea how to actually surf) it describes the situation fairly well
there is the overwhelming amount of information which you must ride the crest
picking out bits of bounty as you go, trying not to be overwhelmed by the
power of the oceans of data.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening London. Its nine | "Repent Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman |
o'clock and this is The Voice |------------------------------------------|
of Fate" V for Vendetta | RUN! IT'S COMING! RUN FOR YOUR SOUL'S!!! |

David W. Morgan

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 8:14:04 PM7/14/93
to

Net Trippers
--
I've never been to Ohio, is there a shortcut from Honolulu?
ao...@yfn.ysu.edu dm...@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ron Asbestos Dippold

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 10:21:53 PM7/14/93
to
ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (David W. Morgan) writes:
>Net Trippers

Net Tripper
Usenet reader, yeah
It's been so long,
since I logged off

--
Space-age cybernomad.

peter da silva

unread,
Jul 14, 1993, 11:23:13 AM7/14/93
to
In article <CA4yw...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> ken...@NeoSoft.com (Kendall Gelner) writes:
> Would someone fortelling the future on the net be "Net Prophet"?

Death of the Net predicted!

Stanton McCandlish

unread,
Jul 15, 1993, 5:32:01 AM7/15/93
to

re: new term in place of netizen

My choice is certainly netlander. Though, I think other terms have their
uses. I think most of us see clear demarkations between net users,
netsurfers, net denizens, net.[whatever], netfolk, and netrunners, among so
many others.

(in case you DON'T my perceptions are: net user = newbie, and/or someone
that uses Inter/UseNet in much the same way as Compu$lave - your typical
business user. Net surfer = someone proficient and enthusiastic about
sampling all the net has to offer; participates in many online fora, handy
with FTP, gopher, wais, WWW, MUDs, etc etc; the netsurfin' safari attitude.
Net denizens = fixtures of the net; people like the staff of EFF, Bruce
Sterling, Kibo, etc.; also applies to people who damn near live hear, like
the type that hang out on MUDs for 14 hrs. straight, who receive in excess
of 300 emails per day, and who know the addresses for most sites of any
reknown, and know what is there. Net.[whatever] = any of several
categories, but specifically applicable to UseNet (NET_[WHATEVER] would be
the Fido [and other BBS-based net] equivalent); ex.: net.god[ess],
net.person[ality], net.folk, etc. etc. Netfolk = a collective term for
all of the above, and more. Anyone who does any networking between sites,
regardless of the networks or platforms involved, qualifies as part of the
netfolk. Synonymous with netlander (which has nice ring to it, and
it's not hackneyed yet.) Netrunner = the advanced form of netsurfer; the
network explorer with a purpose; might include professional researchers
who are adept and finding info; the dedicated .GIF collector, scouring
world-wide sites, and snagging whole directories in one swell foop; the
UseNet aficionado who utilizes PGP and routes mail through 6 anonymous
remailers, just because they can; this is basically the "power user" of
the net.

Then of course there's the netjunkie/nethead. Needs no explanation.

These are just MY impressions, but I suspect they'd be supported by and
large. But, YMMV!
--
Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. *
an...@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION *
FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! *
Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) *

Taki Kogoma

unread,
Jul 15, 1993, 5:28:01 PM7/15/93
to
In article <id.LYU...@nmti.com> pe...@nmti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <CA4yw...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> ken...@NeoSoft.com (Kendall Gelner) writes:
>> Would someone fortelling the future on the net be "Net Prophet"?
>
>Death of the Net predicted!

Forgot 'Imminent' and 'MPEGs at 11'.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) kog...@triton.unm.edu
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
what I have now...

James Kibo Parry

unread,
Jul 16, 1993, 12:41:05 AM7/16/93
to
In article <22386h...@lynx.unm.edu> an...@hydra.unm.edu (Stanton McCandlish) writes:
> Net denizens = fixtures of the net; people like the staff of EFF, Bruce
> Sterling, Kibo, etc.; also applies to people who damn near live hear,

Also applies to those of us who don't really exist except as amazing AI
simulacra.

Oh, and I just want to say that I loved all those "Twilight Zone"
episodes Bruce Sterling hosted. He was a genius.
-- K.

Jennifer Anne Mott

unread,
Jul 21, 1993, 9:18:33 PM7/21/93
to
an...@hydra.unm.edu (Stanton McCandlish) writes:

>re: new term in place of netizen

>My choice is certainly netlander. Though, I think other terms have their
>uses. I think most of us see clear demarkations between net users,
>netsurfers, net denizens, net.[whatever], netfolk, and netrunners, among so
>many others.

[lots of neat descriptions/definitions for each 'type' deleted]

>These are just MY impressions, but I suspect they'd be supported by and
>large. But, YMMV!

I agree with you as to the usefulness of other terms. I don't think it is
possible to pin it down to one word/term. As your apt descriptions point
out there are many different 'types' of internet users, and each category
deserves its own designation.

I rather like netfolk and net.folk as a "umbrella" term myself.

-=Jenni Mott=-
--
Jenni Mott | When in trouble, | All comments are
(mo...@sfu.ca) | When in doubt ... | MINE!!
Computer Engineering Student | Run in circles, | So don't give THEM
Simon Fraser University, CANADA | Scream and Shout! | any of the credit!

Mr J W Bottomley

unread,
Jul 23, 1993, 6:59:33 PM7/23/93
to
In article <1993Jul13....@cas.org>,

lvi...@cas.org writes:
>I would guess that the popular press would prefer 'net geeks' ...

Anoraks.

Spods.

Four Eyes.

Sociopaths.

Unimportant people.

Nothing to do with me of course. :-)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Bottomley: ce...@uk.ac.warwick.csv ; apj...@uk.ac.cov.cck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jorn Barger

unread,
Jul 26, 1993, 2:43:56 AM7/26/93
to

e-people ?

Richard E. Depew

unread,
Jul 26, 1993, 11:42:37 AM7/26/93
to
In article <22vufc$d...@genesis.MCS.COM> jo...@genesis.MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
>
> e-people ?

Is this Plan E? :-)

Net Citizen -- obviously netc!

Be careful with the vowel!

Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
``The greatest blessing of our democracy is freedom. But in the last
analysis, our only freedom is the freedom to discipline ourselves.''
-- Bernard Baruch

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages