"When computers do the news, hoaxes slip in." | csmonitor.com

~~ It is a case of the good with the bad. As pointed out in this article below , alternative news sources-- who would get limited or zero exposure in print & broadcast -- have a ready forum on the Internet.

Yahoo! News contains regular content from "The Nation ", "the Weekly Standard" and loads of other smaller "alternative" news sources, which i know i only read regulary,
because they are on the 'net.
As far as weeding out the truthful from the falsehood,
It is simply, let the reader beware with news.

Hoaxes are nothing new in the creations of the human mind.
The Internet does not create hoaxes. People create hoaxes using the Internet.
The good thing is : That BECAUSE of the Internet's freedom of thought and speech, hoaxes do not last long, but are quickly dispelled. ~~ TP
---------------------

When computers do the news, hoaxes slip in | csmonitor.com:

"Lack of human involvement is why hoaxsters love Google News."

By Randy Dotinga | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

"But while press releases and satire are labeled as such, Google News doesn't give users information about the difference between the missions of, say, a respected newspaper and a website devoted to political diatribes.

Publicists and activists aren't the only people interested in using news aggregator sites to their advantage. Earlier this month, another fake press release made its way onto Google News, this one falsely saying comic actor Will Ferrell had died in a hang-glider accident.

'In the old days, to perpetrate a hoax and get it in front of the eyes of the millions of people, you had to be in the media some way or have access to a reporter. Nowadays, literally anybody can do it,' says Alex Boese, author of 'Hippo Eats Dwarf: A Field Guide to Hoaxes and other BS.'

Google News and its rival sites offer pranksters a forum that seems legitimate, adding credibility to fake stories, Mr. Boese says.

Indeed, Internet users worldwide started buzzing in 2003 when a story appeared on Yahoo News about the arrest of a time traveler on charges of insider trading. The story was from a tabloid newspaper called the Weekly World News that is infamous for its casual relationship with truth."

the most influential Internet moments of the past 10 years

Dotcom boom and bust tops list of Internet watersheds - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK (AFP)

- The breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal [in 1998 was].... voted among the most influential Internet moments of the past 10 years by organisers of the annual Webby Awards."

The second most influential moment voted by the committee came in 1998 when the "The Drudge Report" -- a then little-known, one-man news site -- beat the mainstream media in breaking the scandal of Lewinsky's affair

Democrats vie in Internet 'primary'

Democrats vie in Internet 'primary'

By Tom Curry, MSNBC
Fri, 20 Jun 2003

Some activists smell something fishy about next week's Web-based "primary" to test the early strength of Democratic presidential contenders. While a number of the candidates are urging their supporters to vote in the Moveon.org event, some strategists see it as skewed toward Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who shares the group's antiwar views. "It appears to be rigged," said Erik Smith, a spokesman for Rep. Dick Gephardt's campaign.

SMITH CHARGED THAT people who registered on the Moveon.org Web site this week immediately received an e-mail from Dean, but from no other contender, trying to win their support. "It doesn't look like every candidate was given an equal opportunity," Smith said.

"I'm sorry people feel that way," said Moveon.org co-founder Wes Boyd. "A few days ago, some of the campaigns weren't taking this vote seriously." But now that the event has gotten some news media and grass-roots attention, Boyd said, "some campaigns are trying to delegitimatize this process."

Launched in 1998 by two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to oppose the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Moveon.org says 1.4 million people have participated in its petition and mobilization efforts.

'HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS'
Boyd said he expects "hundreds of thousands" to vote in next week's event, which will be conducted Tuesday and Wednesday. For comparison, about 156,000 voted in the 2000 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary.

Boyd said his group sent a memo to all nine Democratic contenders explaining how the primary would work. In a pre-primary straw poll, the group determined that the three favorites among its members were Dean, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Only the three favorites get a promotional e-mail sent out on their behalf to people who register to vote in the Moveon.org event.

'DEAN'S GUARANTEED WIN'
Playing down the importance of the Moveon.org vote, one operative working in a 2004 campaign said, "It is widely recognized that this is Howard Dean's guaranteed win."

The group will announce the outcome of the vote Friday. If any of the contenders garners more than 50 percent of the votes, he'll get Moveon.org's endorsement for the Democratic nomination.

"We're setting a high bar; it will be very difficult for anybody to achieve that," said Boyd.

He said the group decided to conduct its self-styled primary early in the campaign because "ordinary people should get involved and not let the pundits and big contributors determine the field."

A Dean victory in the Moveon.org primary would add a positive note to what has been a recent series of news-making coups for the Vermont maverick. Last week, Dean launched the first television ads run so far by any Democratic presidential contender.

And last weekend at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention, in a straw poll organized by National Journal's Campaign Hotline, Dean placed first, although only 352 votes were cast.

Moveon.org has played a lead role in opposing President Bush's Iraq policy and is currently running newspaper ads with the headline "MISLEADER" superimposed on a photo of Bush.

ACCUSES BUSH OF LYING :The ad says, "The evidence suggests that ... the American people were deliberately misled. It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie."

Moveon.org's antiwar orientation seems to give a decided advantage in its primary to the two contenders who have been most outspoken in opposing Bush's Iraq policy, Dean and Kucinich.

So why, then, have Democratic hopefuls Gephardt, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. John Edwards -- who all voted to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq -- urged their supporters to take part in the Moveon.org event?

Lieberman campaign spokesman Jano Cabrera told MSNBC.com, "We encourage our supporters to participate, but we encourage them to participate in as many venues and forums as possible."

But Cabrera acknowledged, "When it comes to organizing in cyberspace, the advantage goes to other campaigns. We recognize that Howard Dean has made an extraordinary effort when it comes to organizing people online."

Gephardt campaign spokesman Smith said Gephardt was competing in the Moveon.org primary because "we don't to write anybody off. These (Moveon.org members) are passionate Democrats."

One prominent Democrat who is not affiliated with any campaign was critical of Moveon.org's timing. Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democratic Network, a centrist fund-raising group, said Moveon.org might diminish its clout by endorsing a candidate so early.

"My concern in that this primary -- and if they end up endorsing (a candidate) -- could dramatically limit their long-term ability to be influential in the Democratic Party," said Rosenberg. "They have taken an enormous risk. I hope they know what they are doing."

Moveon.org staffer Zack Exley recently took a two-week leave of absence from the group to work as paid consultant for the Dean campaign on how to improve its Internet voter mobilization tools.

Exley said Moveon.org had offered to share its expertise with other Democratic presidential contenders as well. His work for Dean, Exley said, "should not be interpreted as a sign that the Move.on staff has an interest in endorsing Dean."

He added, "We're supporting all the Democratic candidates" by offering to spread Moveon.org's Internet expertise.

HOW VALID A VOTE?
One computer expert suggested there's reason to question the validity of any Internet vote.

"It is impossible to ensure an accurate vote over the Internet, using conventional computer hardware and software (e.g., PCs running Windows, etc.)," said Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of a group called People For Internet Responsibility.

"The fundamental nature of these systems makes them open to voting compromise in a vast number of ways, most of which could be completely hidden from the user," said Weinstein. "Vote hackers could even plant viruses on systems way in advance that would just sit and wait for an election."

Asked about Weinstein's analysis, Boyd conceded there may be "opportunities for abuse" in the Moveon.org vote, but he noted, "there are opportunities for abuses in our larger electoral system as well."

The group has commissioned a telephone exit poll of a sample of those who take part in next week's vote to see if the sample jibes with the total raw vote. If the exit poll is substantially at odds with the total vote, Boyd said, the group may try to find out if the vote was manipulated in some way.

Putting aside the technical questions, if Dean does indeed win the Moveon.org vote, the rival campaigns will quickly seek to, as they say, just move on.

MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003

Is the Digital Age Good or is the Digital Age Bad for American Democracy? : Part A: Overview and statistics.

Is the Digital Age Good

or is the Digital Age Bad

for American Democracy?

Part A: Overview and statistics.

The Internet explosion began in 1995 with the introduction of Microsoft Corporation’s Windows 95, and its Internet Explorer. Before this historical watershed the Internet was a sparsely populated domain composed mainly of academics, technophiles and even some political activists.[i] World-wide in December 1995 there were about 16 million users of the Internet [ii] out of a global population of over 4.5 billion (~.0036 %). Just 7 years later in December 2001 a Neilson/NetRatings survey of the largest 22 industrial nations shows at least 422.4 million Earthlings to be online,[iii] (nearly 10% of the world population). About 140 million of these users are in the United States, with 54% of the total American population connecting to the web [iv] at home, work or school.

The rapid diffusion of the Internet and other digital communication devices compared to the technological advances of other eras is staggering. Telegraph, telephones, radio, television and faxing, all spread into the masses at much slower paces. In 1930, United States census figures found the telephone was in only 40% of American households[v], this more than four decades after its invention.[vi]

The Digital Age has brought us the Internet, cell-phones, personal digital assistants [PDA’s] and an array of other wireless communication devices, which together have fundamentally changed the way much of the human race communicates. Today it is common to see a people fully hooked-up ---with cellphone, e-mail pager, and wireless laptop computer--- communicating away while on an Amtrak train or in a local Starbucks. [vii] It all makes (comic-book detective) Dick Tracy’s telephone-wristwatch look primitive by comparison. We may not have closed the last millennium with colonies on the moon (as many predicted during the space race of the 1960’s), but with the new century the Digital Age allows people instant communication to someone (or some group), through any various means portable media, at will, anytime, anywhere. (Of course as long as the person/people on the other end has a compatible device.[viii]) And all this communicating can be accomplished in volume at an affordable cost. Has this not always been the “holy grail” of the techno-communications industry since early human history? [ix]

Armed simply with laptop computer a person can simultaneously surf the web, talk on the phone ---(as many modern computers have a telephone built in)--- send hundreds of faxes, e-mail thousands (--if not millions--) and do it all without leaving the bed of a hotel room. E-mail has become the cheapest and easiest way ever to send mass communication with the lowest going rate for executing one million e-mails at only $200,[x] making e-mail the first tool of mass communication that is readily and cheaply accessible to the masses. Clearly the media of the Internet and Digital Communications has enormous potential as both a means of political communication and a source of political power and influence. The question is: How will this potential be realized?

---

[i] During the second half of the 1980’s, I was on staff at the global environmental organization Greenpeace’s New York City office (www.greenpeace.org). The organization then had it’s own early Internet portal called GREENLINK. Every day after punching in several dozen DOS keyboard commands ---(back then a mouse was only a rodent)-- we printed out Greenpeace’s issue briefings and news releases from around the globe using a dot-matrix printer. Seems like ancient history now.

[ii] Gromov , Gregory R. History of Internet and WWW: The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History

Available @: http://www.netvalley.com/intvalstat.html and last accessed July 3, 2002.

[iii] Mariano, Gwendolyn: Web Usage Grows Across Globe, CNET News.com, June 10, 2002.
Accessed June 11 2002 @ http://news.com.com/2100-1023-934655.html

[iv] Dreazen, Yochi J. : U.S. Web Usage Hits 54 Percent Report: For first time, more than half of population on Net. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Feb. 4 2002. Via www.MSNBC.com .

Accessed Feb 5 2002 @ http://www.msnbc.com/news/699335.asp?0na=x2249150-

(Link not currently active)

[v] United States Census Bureau @ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/phone.html Last accessed June 15, 2002

[vi] Though television's invention was in 1929 it remained commercially dormant for nearly twenty years; until it exploded with an equally astounding place from 1948-1954. Windows and Internet Explorer exploded in use shortly after their invention.

[vii] www.MSNBC.com Wireless Web comes to Starbucks. August 21, 2002

Last accessed August 21, 2002@ http://www.msnbc.com/news/797121.asp?0na=x225L171-

[viii] It is possible today for different Digital media to be in use by the communicating parties. For example: I can use my computer to send a e-mail to someone’s e-mail pager. I can also use my email portal to send and receive faxes and I can get e-mail verbally read to me by an electronically generated voice on my cellphone.

[ix] Davis, Richard: The Web Of Politics: The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System. Oxford University Press. Copyright 1999. ISBN: 0-19-511485-X

See pages 28-29 for a brief overview this topic from a political-historical prospective.

[x] Orr, Andrea: Innocent 'Hello' Sells Hot Sex on the Internet.

April 27 2002 , Reuters. Accessed April 28 2002 @ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=581&e=2&cid=581&u=/nm/20020427/tc_nm/column_nettrends_dc_26 [Link not currently active]

— Cyber-gripers, take heart

http://www.msnbc.com/news/691648.asp?0na=x225C4G4-

‘Sucks’ sites to be doled out for free

Free speech lawyer creates service to encourage criticism

By Bob Sullivan MSNBC

Jan. 21, 2002 — Cyber-gripers, take heart. You and your “ThisCompanySucks.com” Web site have a patron. Free speech lawyer Ed Harvilla is worried that too many “sucks” domains have been taken away from owners and given to their target companies. So he and some silent partners have developed a system to dole out “sucks” Web sites — and he’s given them away for free.

=================

During the 2000 Presidential primary season, Senator John McCain's campaign scored a fund-raising coup online

During the 2000 Presidential primary season, Senator John McCain's campaign scored a fund-raising coup online in the wake of his victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary. Team McCain raised about 2 million via his campaign website in the week after his NH primary win.[93] [94] But Senator McCain still lost the nomination to now President George W. Bush.

The Internet and the Future of Presidential Politics

====================

The Digital Tea Leaves of Election 2000:
The Internet and the Future of Presidential Politics

by Don Lewicki and Tim Ziaukas
First Monday, volume 5, number 12 (December 2000),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_12/lewicki/index.html

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/818/727

Abstract

While the Internet may not have played the transformational role in the election of the U.S. President in 2000 that some predicted, this new medium of political communications suggested what an Internet-driven transformation in political communications might look like. After setting the stage by discussing the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) by Sen. John McCain in the primary campaign, the researchers evaluate the Web sites of four major candidates for President of the United States over the course of the general election. Additionally, this article serves as a digital archive of Web pages caught at what many believe is the nascent stage of what might come to be the dominant medium for political communications in the decades to come.

===========================

e-advocates/Juno Post-Election Review Finds Net Savvy Challengers Defeat Incumbents

~Technopolitical editor's note:~~
~~ In the 2000 Congressional races the Internet played a debatable role in overall election strategies. E-Advocates (a firm that manages online campaigns) and Juno Online Services (hosts of many campaign websites @ www.juno.com ) ---- and who are by no means unbiased observers---- did a post-2000 election study of Congressional candidates and their websites. I want to quote from their finding summary first and then highlight what I see to be the holes in their arguments.

“In Campaign 2000, challengers who won tight congressional races against incumbents also won the battle of the Web, according to a post-election review of congressional candidate Web sites by e-advocates.com and Juno Online Services, Inc. The study found that in the 8 toss-up U.S. House and Senate races where a challenger won, an overwhelming majority – 75 percent – employed a superior Web strategy, as defined by online voters in a February 2000 e-advocates/Juno survey and candidate rankings on top search engines. Additionally, in seven out of the eight races, the winning challenger raised less money than the losing incumbent – an anomaly in the results of all congressional races nationwide”.

It is my firm believe based on experience as a political professional, that core organization of any campaign's staffing and activist base is the most important factor –--even over money--- in any successful election run or lobby-issue crusade. The fact that the less-funded challengers with effective websites fared better than those without effective websites, more than likely means that these campaigns were simply more energetic and better organized to turn out their voting supporters. It is not so much that their website helped them win, but that producing a solid website was reflective of good core organization. Richard Davis correctly asserts that "the Web plainly is less useful than, say, direct mail or newsletters" [102] in getting out information about a campaign and/or candidate. And until the digital divide is completely closed in the USA it will most certainly remain that way.

The message that the Internet can only play a small supporting role in winning election campaigns seems to have registered with Congressional candidates in the upcoming 2002 elections. A study by the Bivings Group shows that as of March 2002 “only 29 percent of Senators and Representatives up for election in 2002, have clearly marked campaign websites.” [103] The same study put Republicans as better equipped in using the Internet to energize their bases, and for adding to those numbers. So as of now the GOP is winning this Cyber-Electioneering arms race and only a post-mortum of the 2002 race will tell if it will also translate into electoral victories.

I do plan to do a follow up when that scorecard is in. For there are on the horizon in this year's 2002 elections several trials of voter-peer-to-peer Cyber-Electioneering [sort of like phone-tress but in cyber-space], and the experimentation with techno-real-time monitoring of voter turnout on election day, possibly enabling elections campaigns to better target election day voter pulls as the day progresses. As we have seen in the 2000 American Presidential elections every vote can count (---unless the Supreme Court says no---) so any cyber-tools that may get you additional votes will eventually find their way into the permanent arsenals of election campaigns. (We will see if any of the above mentioned cyber-electioneering "experiments" become worth writing about after the 2002 election.)

********************

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_natrvw/m4PRN/2000_Nov_20/67456681/p1/article.jhtml?term=cyberpolitics
Nov 20, 2000

e-advocates/Juno Post-Election Review Finds Net Savvy Challengers Defeat Incumbents.

In Toss-Up Races, Congressional Challengers

Used the Web to Advantage

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

In Campaign 2000, challengers who won tight congressional races against incumbents also won the battle of the Web, according to a post-election review of congressional candidate Web sites by e- advocates and Juno Online Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: JWEB).

The study found that in the 8 toss-up U.S. House and Senate races where a challenger won, an overwhelming majority -- 75 percent -- employed a superior Web strategy, as defined by online voters in a February 2000 e-advocates/Juno survey and candidate rankings on top search engines. Additionally, in seven out of the eight races, the winning challenger raised less money than the losing incumbent -- an anomaly in the results of all congressional races nationwide.

Among winning challengers in toss-up House and Senate races, all had Web sites that provided information and features desired by voters online, including issue statements, campaign e-mail addresses, volunteer and online contribution opportunities, and online voter registration capabilities.

. Eighty-eight percent of winning challengers provided issue statements that could provide the basis for voters to compare candidates, a feature desired by 79 percent of Internet users. Sixty-three percent of winning challengers provided campaign e-mail addresses, a feature of interest to 73 percent of Internet users.

All victorious challengers provided Internet users with the ability to volunteer with their campaigns online, a feature identified as important by 13 percent of Internet users, and 88 percent of winning challengers gave Internet users the ability to make campaign contributions online, a feature of interest to 7 percent of Internet users

. Thirty-eight percent of winning challengers offered online voters the ability to register to vote online, a feature of interest to 42 percent of Internet users.

"Today's savvy candidates aren't just going door-to-door, they're connecting with voters desktop to desktop," said Pam Fielding, principal, e- advocates. "With 59 percent of U.S. adults now online, no candidate in a tight race can afford to ignore the Web -- or the needs of e-voters," said Nicole Duritz, also a principal, e-advocates.

The firms also tested the ranking of candidate sites with top search engines -- an important strategy for campaigns to connect with online voters.
The search engine test found that 75 percent of winning challengers in tight races achieved a first-page, search-engine ranking with at least three of the four major engines as identified by Media Metrix -- Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Lycos. Reviewers gave candidates a successful rating with a search engine if, after entering their first and last names into the search field, the search engine provided a link to the candidates' official campaign Web sites on the first page of the search results.

In seven out of the eight races analyzed by e-advocates and Juno, the winning challenger raised less money than the losing incumbent.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data analyzed by U.S. PIRG and reported in an unrelated study, only seven percent of winning congressional candidates nationwide raised less money than their opponents. Michael Cornfield, George Washington University Associate Research Professor and Research Director of George Washington University's Democracy Online Project, observed that the findings suggest a strong Internet strategy can "help financial underdogs gain better footing."

"Election 2000 will go down in history as the first presidential cycle where the Net played a decisive role in political campaigns.

Candidates and elected officials who underestimated the virtual voter were likely to suffer for it," said Roger Stone, Vice President of Juno Online Services and director of the Juno Advocacy Network, Juno's Washington D.C.-based public interest and political advertising division.

To view a chart detailing candidate Internet performance, please visit http://www.e-advocates.com/survey .

The U.S. Senate race for Washington State remains undecided and, for this reason, is not included in the analysis.

About e-advocates

e-advocates, based in Washington, DC, is a full-service Internet advocacy consulting firm dedicated to helping public affairs and advocacy organizations harness the power of the Internet to achieve legislative and political priorities.

Principals Pam Fielding and Nicole Duritz are leading experts in the field of cyberpolitics. Fielding is coauthor of the recently published book, The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape, which highlights how the Internet is reconnecting citizens with government. e-advocates is a subsidiary of Capitol Advantage, the premier innovator of Internet-based political tools and services.

Through the use of its products, hundreds of organizations have promoted their agenda and influenced the political process by engaging individuals in political dialogue. Survey results can be viewed at http://www.e-advocates.com/survey . To reach Pam Fielding and Nicole Duritz for comment, please call 202/955-3001.

About Juno

Juno Online Services, Inc. is a leading provider of Internet access to millions of computer users throughout the United States

Founded in 1996, the company provides multiple levels of service, including free basic Internet access, billable premium dial-up service, and (in certain markets) high-speed broadband access. Juno's revenues are derived primarily from the subscription fees charged for its billable premium services, from the sale of advertising, and from various forms of electronic commerce.

Based on its total of 3.7 million active subscribers during the month of September 2000, Juno is currently the nation's third largest provider of dial- up Internet services, after AOL and EarthLink. As of September 30, 2000, Juno had approximately 12.77 million total registered subscriber accounts.

For more information about Juno, visit http://www.juno.com/corp . To get a copy of the Juno software, go to http://www.juno.com or call 1-800-TRY-JUNO.

COPYRIGHT 2000 PR

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_natrvw/m4PRN/2000_Nov_20/67456681/p1/article.jhtml?term=cyberpolitics

Newswire Association, Inc.
in association with The Gale Group and LookSmart. COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

Post-Election 2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics

http://democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml

Post-Election 2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics
December 4, 2000

"Highlights of a nationwide survey of 1,006 American adults, conducted for the Democracy Online Project between November 21-26, 2000, by Thomas Opinion Research, in conjunction with the TNS Intersearch Omni Poll (margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points):

The most general findings:

- More than one in three Americans (35%) uses the Internet to get information about politics, campaigns, or issues in the news. In 1998, 25% did. Thirty percent of today's "online public," reported getting public affairs information from the Internet "almost every day" and 35% do so Aoccasionally."

- Four in ten Internet users (40%) Bor 14% of the total adult populationB say the Internet was important in providing them with information that helped them decide how to vote in the November election. In 1998, 36%, or 9% of the total population, responded similarly. Men relied on the Net more than women, 44% to 33% saying it was an important source of help in deciding their vote. Half of the youngest users (ages 18-34; 491%) relied on the Net considerably, and 45% of those ages 35-44.

The following figures are percentages of the 55% of survey respondents who said they use the Internet. (Note: this is somewhat higher than the 44% of Americans online according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's August 2000 study.)

- When it comes to politics and public affairs, Net users turn to e-mail more than the Web. And they prefer humor to action."

From: http://democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml

9999999999

Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments

One of the Best Early Studies. Very Historical, ~tb

Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery

by State and Federal Governments

by Darrell M. West

Brown University

Providence, RI 02912

(401) 863-1163

Email: Darrell_West@brown.edu

September, 2000

http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html

last accessed March 18 2009

Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the New Dark Ages

Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the New Dark Ages

by Roger Clarke
First Monday, volume 4, number 11 (November 1999),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_11/clarke/index.html

" There's a common presumption that the Internet has brought with it the promise of openness, democracy, the end of inequities in the distribution of information, and human self-fulfillment. Any such conclusion would be premature.

The digital era has ambused and beguiled us all. Its first-order impacts are being assimilated, but its second-order implications are not. Powerful institutions perceive their interests to be severely threatened by the last decade of technological change and by the shape of the emergent 'information economy'. Elements of their fight back are identified, particularly extensions to legal protectionism, and the active development and application of technologies that protect data from prying eyes.

Many of the features that have ensured a progressive balance between data protection and freedom of access to data have already been seriously eroded. The new balance that emerges from the current period of turmoil may be far less friendly to public access and more like a New Dark Ages."

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

New Statesman: Change the world via e-mail - use of Inernet by political activists - Brief Article

New Statesman: Change the world via e-mail - use of Inernet by political activists - Brief Article: "FindArticles > New Statesman > Nov 1, 1999 > Article > Print friendly

Change the world via e-mail - use of Internet by political activists - Brief Article
Brian Doherty

Open to everyone, the Internet offers new possibilities to those trying to challenge the established order.

'The revolutionary forces of the future may consist increasingly of widespread multi-organisational networks that have no particular national identity, claim to arise from civil society and include aggressive groups and individuals who are keenly adept at using advanced technology for communications.' So spoke the Rand Corporation in 1993.

But did they mean multinational corporations or the social movements opposing them? Both sides could fit the description, and that tells us something about the most important political battle of our time, one in which the Internet is playing an increasingly important role.

For campaigning groups such as Earth First!, where actions speak louder than words, the real measure of the difference the Internet makes is in its effectiveness as a mobilising tool. Detailed tactical manuals on everything from tripods to tunnels are available online and may explain why this technology has spread so fast. It is also easy to find a local Earth First! group in Br"

A Brief History of the Cyber-Electioneering : 1992- 1996.

A Brief History of

CYBER-

ELECTIONEERING

from 1992 to 1996.

The history of the Cyber-Electioneering began in 1992 when the Democratic Presidential ticket of Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore posted a website with "full texts of speeches, advertisements and position papers, as well as biographical information."[88] Being a minuscule amount of the American population had Internet access at the time [89] the website was more a novelty than anything else.

Four years latter though in 1996 --- after Window 95 and Internet Explorer was introduced—an election day exit poll by the Voter News Service[90] showed 26% of American voters to be regular Internet users.[91] Realizing this growing trend earlier that year, 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole felt compelled to announce his campaign's website address at the end of his first nationally televised debate with President Bill Clinton.[92] It did not help, and he lost the race anyway.

"This type of chain-letter petition can also counterproductively annoy the legislative staffers

~~~ This is the earliest academic electronic posting I have found reviewing the lack effectiveness of Email - Cyber -Lobbying. Cyber-Lobbying will never match the power of hand-written letters and grassroots voter action. ~

~~ `Technopolitical ~~ `

by Phil Agre April 1996

Department of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90095-1520
USA"
pagre@ucla.edu
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/

"This type of chain-letter petition can also counterproductively annoy the legislative staffers and other lowly individuals who are supposed to open the petitions when they arrive in the mail. The problem lies in the mathematics of Internet chain letters."

"Most of them, for one thing, have been very badly designed. They usually have no cut-off date, source of background information, signature from the organization or individual who is sponsoring the alert, or instruction to post the alert only where appropriate. As a result, these alerts have caused a lot of disruption and annoyance all around the net, and it would not surprise me if the negative sentiment they cause outweighs the positive benefit of the actions they encourage."

http://www.oneworld.net/anydoc_mc.cgi?url=http://www.netaction.org/training/

by Phil Agre April 1996

"Feel free to circulate this article for any noncommercial purpose.

Department of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90095-1520
USA"
pagre@ucla.edu
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/

The Internet explosion began in 1995

The Internet explosion began in 1995 

with the introduction of Microsoft Corporation’s

 Windows 95, and its Internet Explorer.

 Before this historical watershed the Internet was a sparsely populated domain composed mainly of academics, technophiles and even some political activists.[26] 

 World-wide in December 1995 there were about 16 million users of the Internet[27] out of a global population of over 4.5 billion (~.0036 %). Just 7 years later in December 2001 a Neilson/NetRatings survey of the largest 22 industrial nations shows at least 422.4 million Earthlings to be online,[28] (nearly 10% of the world population). About 140 million of these users are in theUnited States, with 54% of the total American population connecting to the web[29] at home, work or school.

"electronic town halls." & Why E-Democracy Won’t Ever Fly in the USA

~~ Comment below post ~` TP

From: A Paper Prepared for the
Kettering Foundation

By Scott London
March 1994

http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/ed.html

""The perennial debate over the future of American democracy reached new heights in the wake of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, the centerpiece of which was his notion of "electronic town halls." The idea was an evocative and appealing one: to recreate the spirited gatherings of New England townspeople on a national scale through the medium of interactive technology. When asked about the electronic town hall in a television interview, he put it this way:"

"I would create an electronic town hall where, say, every week or so we would take a single major issue to the people. We would explain it in great detail and then we would get a response from the owners of the country - the people - that could be analyzed by congressional district so that the Congress - no if's, and's and but's - would know what the people want. Then the boys running around with briefcases representing special interests would be de-horned - to use a Texas term."" Ross Perot during his 1992 Presidential campaign

http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/ed.html

A separate annotated bibliography on electronic democracy, compiled in 1994, is available here.

You are welcome to distribute this file, but please use it fairly -- don't remove my name or change my words if you quote from it. I would also appreciate hearing from you if you are interested in these issues, have corrections, or information on this subject that my be useful in my ongoing research.

Copyright 1993-2005 by Scott London. All rights reserved.

~~~

Why E-Democracy Won’t Ever Fly in the USA

A decade ago many pundits envisioned the Information Super Highway as heralding a new age of direct democracy in America. In an Electronic-Democracy (e-democracy), citizens would directly decide on public policy and legislation via live Internet voting, after cyber-public debate.

Or at the very least, non-binding national cyber-debates would guide elected leaders to follow the American peoples will. In theory the rise of the Internet and other Digital Technologies would facilitate more informed thus more involved citizens bringing about fairer and more just social policy.

“I would create an electronic town hall where, say, every week or so we would take a single major issue to the people. We would explain it in great detail and then we would get a response from the owners of the country - the people - that could be analyzed by congressional district so that the Congress - no if's, and's and but's - would know what the people want.”

------ Ross Perot during his 1992 Presidential campaign.

As we have seen, today in 2002, while the Internet has somewhat impacted the activities of the American citizens in several areas, the vision of Ross Perot’s “e-town hall” is very, very, very far off. (Did I say "very?" I cannot emphasize this point enough.) The evolution of a formal (--and even informal--) and direct “E-Democracy” in the USA is completely stymied on the national level by the fact that America is not a pure Democracy. The American citizen body has no formal constitutional role in the formation of federal law and policy. Rather the United States of America is a Democratic Republic, where the American body politic elects our legislatures and executives to enact laws and make national policy decisions in a slow (and hopefully) deliberative fashion.~~~ Technopolitical , july 2002.