The Free-Nets' Impacts in General

Qualities of an Effective Online Community

it has "regulars" (Oldenberg via Schuler, p.42) and "its members recognize each other" (Sudia, p.11)

All three systems break down into small enough parts (special interest groups) that I, as a visitor, was quickly spotted, greeted and welcomed by the regulars.

it has a "sense of community"

Jim Kutz described the "sense of community" as "an attitude of receptivity, an ability to get along with others, and an acquired habit of being helpful to others IN GENERAL... It's an expanded awareness of potential mutual interest." (Jun. 23) I had thought that the value of this in communities was a given; however, while Anonymous Twenty-Seven, Grossman, and Ivany agreed that this feeling is necessary, Anonymous Twenty-Six disagreed.

its emphasis is geographical rather than "virtual" (Schuler, p.33)

Of the three Free-Nets, CFN is the only one that attracts users from outside its area, but its emphasis is still on local issues. WC-SGFN offers a larger percentage of links to the Internet than the other two systems.

it emphasizes the community over the individual (Schuler, p.33)

All three Free-Nets have bylaws which clearly state that individuals' rights are subordinate to the group's rights.

it prefers "multiway conversation over broadcast" and "discussion over propaganda" (Schuler, p.33)

While certain areas of all three systems are intended for distributing information from an authoritative source, in general they emphasize full participation and the value of feedback.

it is inclusive rather than exclusive (Schuler, p.33)

All three systems have a few areas that are off-limits to children or new users or are intended for the benefit of a particular group, but in general everything is open to all.

it prefers "networks over hierarchies" (Schuler, p.33) and is a "leveler" (Oldenberg via Schuler, p.47)

The leveling influence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) will be discussed below. It is nearly impossible to convey a hierarchy of ranks when everyone is represented only by a name or number. Even the menu structures of the Free-Nets are not always hierarchical (see the appendices)!

its main activity is conversation (Oldenberg via Schuler, p.42)

Very little else ever happens on a BBS.

its software promotes good discussions (Godwin)

It was my impression that good discussions occurred under all three software packages.

it imposes no length limitation on postings (Godwin)

I am certain that each software package must have some such limitation, but I did not encounter it on any of the systems.

it provides "institutional memory" (Godwin)

All three systems archive posts to message forums for anywhere from a few days to eternity.

it is "host to a particular interest group" (Godwin)

Each system provides space for dozens of SIGs.

it provides "places for children" (Godwin)

Each system has a School House which opens either (at CFN and WC-SGFN) onto NPTN's worldwide Academy One program or (at GLFN) onto SIGs for local schools. The future of the Academy One program is in doubt now that NPTN is bankrupt, so CFN and WC-SGFN may have to develop local forums similar to those at GLFN. CFN and GLFN also have kids' areas unrelated to school.

the Free-Nets' impact on individuals and interpersonal interaction

"Emerging technologies promise to provide individuals with opportunities to increase their personal autonomy, enhance their sense of connection to others, and, in general, enable greater accomplishments and self-fulfillment. These same technologies, however, could produce the opposite outcomes, contributing to personal isolation, increased dependency, and the loss of privacy." (OTA, pp.6-7)

By far, most of the people I surveyed agreed that the Free-Nets have the former, good effects but not the latter, negative ones. (Four, Moore, Mutchler Jul. 11, Lebovitz, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Grossman, Myers, Connors, Kurilec, Thirty-One) On the other hand, Dusteen Richards felt that the Free-Nets have none of these effects; they "simply allow the introverted an excuse to be so."

working with computers makes people antisocial (Brod, p.139)

"if Cleveland Free-Net didn't exist, these people would still exist in the same mode. They would still be introverted, they would just have noplace to go." (Eleven) "Some individuals report *increased* interest in socializing, upon learning that there are more different kinds of people out there than they ever imagined." (Kutz, Jun. 23) Anonymous Thirty-One offered herself as an example of someone who used to be introverted before using GLFN but now is more social.

using computers makes people, particularly children, intolerant of human relationships (Brod, p.140)

A few people agreed with this: "I've watched friends of mine who are practically net-addicts push people through conversations like they are looking for the 'scroll ahead' button" (Richards). Allan Grossman agrees that this happens with children. On the other hand, the effect probably isn't unique to computers: "If your kid's spending five hours a day watching TV or five hours a day with the headphones on listening to Ozzy Ozbourne or five hours a day staring at a Web browser, you've probably got problems no matter what." (Connors)

people use community networks as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), "on-ramps" rather than destinations

On the contrary, "we [Kitsap Regional Library's community network] are responsible for more commercial accounts than any other single entity. We don't do MUDS or irc or newsgroups. We don't do slip/ppp or shell accounts. And when people want that we say, hey, there are these commercial providers where you can get all that, and ... you won't get as many busy signals. ... we're handing over a more sophisticated user who has learned what a modem is. I figure we ought to charge the ISPs for training costs." (Schuyler, ¶10)

"the electronic venue seems exceedingly vulnerable to ... aggressive antisocial behavior" (Schuler, p.256-257) such as profanity, "snide remarks, less-than-third-rate porn, and drunken poetry-like stuff" (Fourteen)

Most of my respondents (Four, Eleven, Lebovitz, Grossman, Myers) felt that there are "a few bizarre individuals who get some kind of childish thrill from writing dirty words" (Mutchler, Jul. 11), while others disagreed (Twenty-Five, Twenty-Seven). I also encountered a few personal confessions: "As an artist of the bizarre and disgusting, I am gratified that one of my creations elicited a gut reaction in [a fellow user]. Her much-welcomed disgust is excellent feedback to an artist-of-disgust such as myself." (Thirteen) "Actually, I tend to use LESS foul language on-line, because I ... don't want to give others the chance to say: 'Why should we believe someone who expresses himself so vulgarly? If THAT'S the best you can do ...'" (Ammann) "Most people are generally less likely to use harsh or obscene language in a deliberately offensive way on-line because written words seem more permanent and unretractable than verbal speech and people tend to think twice about it." (Mutchler, Jul. 11)

computer-mediated communication (CMC) is "inappropriate and/or ineffective for exchanges in which interpersonal exchange is needed because the medium provides 'scant social information' (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991, p. 119)." (Walther, ¶3)

Most users agreed that e-mail is not appropriate for some types of communication (Ammann), but a few felt that it can be used for all communication.

Free-Nets attract people who are antisocial -- stereotypical "computer geeks" whose "eight, ten hours on the computer every evening is what their life is all about." (Eleven)

Some of the users I surveyed felt this is true (Four, Grossman, Myers) and others (Kutz Jun. 23, Moore, Twenty-Six) that "it's not true, after all, what they say about computer types." (Twenty-Four). The general consensus seems to be that Free-Nets reach out to equal numbers of social people and those "who wouldn't otherwise be able to communicate" (Bell-Moores) due to shyness (Thirty-One) or physical disabilities (Bell-Moores), "but the ratios _seem_ to favor the introverts because they spend more overall time on-line. The extroverts aren't logged in as much because they have other things to do." (Richards) Connors pointed out that, "if we're going to traffic in stereotypes, ['computer geeks'] are the first to abandon a Free-Net for something hotter."

Free-Nets allow people to pretend to be different from who or what they are, generally just what they "would probably want to be" (Eleven) but sometimes even a person of a different sex or age

The users I surveyed were divided not only over whether this occurs (Four, Ammann, and Thirty-One agree, Jill Moore and Twenty-Five (Jun. 24) disagree) but also over whether it's a problem. A few felt "it's positive to everyone, 'cause you could be whatever you want to be" (Bell-Moores) and "you can't tell initially whether they are black or white, male or female, straight or gay, or even how old they are." (Mutchler, Jun. 12) "The person you get to know on-line may be more genuine than the person you might have met 'in person' because your ... view of them is not distorted by ... prejudices ... And their portrayal of themselves is less distorted by things like shyness, fear, or their prejudices about you." (Mutchler, Jul. 11) Even those who have been misled -- and even disappointed -- by other users tend to not see it as a problem with the medium: "I do think that a lot of times people misrepresent themselves, but I think they're also dishonest to begin with." (Eleven)

the Free-Nets' impact on groups and community interaction

community networks build community awareness, encourage involvement in local decision-making, and have an "immense potential for increasing participation in community affairs, far greater than that offered by traditional media" (Schuler, p.25), particularly "among underserved and isolated populations." (Snow, p.18)

This issue was one of the most fundamental questions in my study. Many respondents agreed with the statement (Four, Twenty-Six, Connors, Kurilec, Grossman, Ivany), but a considerable number disagreed (Ammann, Mutchler Jul. 11). "I don't think so. I think we'd all be in the house using freenet and never even *meet* our neighbors. :)" (Moore) "I think the Free-Net systems create a false sense of knowing people, how they live, where they live, and what they do, and I don't think that the majority of people pursue the findings of these people to bring in the neighborhood." (Eleven)

community networks can reach only a small percentage of the population because they require literacy and access to computers

"of the homes in the United States ... only about 27 percent (in 1993) have personal computers and only 11 percent of individuals use computer network services (RAND, 1995). And some people have no residence or workplace at all. Unless there is free or very low-cost public access from libraries, schools, community or senior centers, shopping malls, or other public locations, these people are effectively barred from using community networks." (Schuler, p.47) All three Free-Nets offer access from local public libraries, but this service is naturally only available to those who can reach the libraries, use computers, and read.

high technology allows desynchronization of formally synchronized events (dinner, TV shows, conversations), allowing loss of human contact. (Westrum, p.274)

While I did not specifically ask users about this issue, I think it is clear that e-mail and message forums tend to desynchronize communication. However, most users do not seem to see this as a problem, because their lives are already so desynchronized that they can no longer schedule synchronous communication with their friends and communities.

Free-Nets encourage communication between people who live far apart, not neighbors

"your early question concerning where I lived implied you thought I was a Clevelander. I'm not. So what?" (Lebovitz) I was tempted to respond, "So you're making CFN less of a community resource!" Again, while many users agreed with the statement (Four, Fifteen, Twenty-Five, Myers, Ivany), many others disagreed (Moore, Twenty-Six). "I THINK THEY FOSTER COMMUNICATION WITH BOTH GROUPS. THRU A LISTSERVER, I HAVE GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH A SWISS ACUPUNCTURIST IN ENGLAND. YET, I ALSO SWAP E-MAIL WITH PEOPLE WHO LIVE JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY." (Segers, Jul. 14) "I live right across the street from another member of GLFN and until I chatted witth him here I didn't even know him." (Myers) "you might be talking to the person who actually lives next door to you, or in Iowa." (Eleven) "If you're *looking* to form a local group, you can. If however you're looking for anyone anywhere who knows about 'X', you can easily end up with somebody far away, because the 'average distance' between people you have access to is fairly large." (Kutz, Jun. 23)

message forums tend to "level" hierarchies of power because everyone is equally able to contribute to discussions (Walther, ¶12)

Many of my respondents agreed that Free-Nets have a leveling influence (Four, Twenty-Six, Ivany), but many others disagreed (Moore, Twenty-Five, Grossman). "The discussions get heated, personal, and for all intents and purposes -- private. ... The more dominant posters take the floor and keep it, just as they would in a conversation." (Richards) "it's real hard [for others] to get a word in edgewise when I'm [talking to them face-to-face], whereas on a bulletin board you can post a message and the next person can post 10 messages refuting that, and you can post 20, and you're never overlapping." (Eleven) "community network pioneer Lee Felsenstein [feels] that leveling is not an inherent aspect of electronic forums and 'de-leveling' is already occuring in many places (1995)." (Schuler, p.48) "There are many people who are afraid to post because they're afraid they're going to get negative comments." (Bell-Moores)

women and other political minorities are underrepresented online; "Users tend to be white, middle-class males between the ages of 20 and 50. They tend to be employed, have greater than average income, speak English, and have few disabilities." (Schuler, p.273)

Anonymous Four, Ammann, Eleven, Twenty-Six, Connors, Kurilec, and Ivany agreed that minorities are underrepresented, but Jill Moore, Mutchler Jul. 11, Lebovitz, Twenty-Five, Grossman, and Thirty-One disagreed. "[America Online] seems dominated by white men. However, many of those 'men' one meets are actually women using male names to avoid harrassment." (Richards) "some of the most educated people I know are also some of those so intimidated by this technology that they won't have one of the machines in their home!" (Twenty-Three) "Generally women and minorities are *less* under-represented in online communities, because they're not *identifiable* unless they wish to be, and because there's no mechanism for keeping them out. ... Conversely, there are more white males in professional jobs that *familiarize* them with online communications ( LANs, email etc. ) so that they understand the value of it in their private lives." (Kutz, Jun. 23)

community networks give existing organizations more visibility and help new organizations to form

"Virtually all organizations have information they'd like to distribute electronically. ... Lack of resources or technical expertise may inhibit their desire to participate ..., although the promise of increased visibility in their community, reduced communication costs, and the desire to 'modernize' their operations often helps to overcome these obstacles." (Schuler, p.271) "Being able to form SIGs to share those interests without the hassles of putting out a newsletter, organizing meetings, driving across town, making coffee etc. is a distinct advantage. Note that you can't advertise the existence of a small group in the phone book without getting socked for a business line - so just the *visibility* on a community system vastly improves connectedness." (Kutz, Jun. 23)

as community networks become more popular, they will replace existing community institutions and media

One of my respondents felt that this is possible (Twenty-Five), but most believe it is not (Ammann, Moore, Twenty-Six). "People on CFN post editorial after editorial. ... The [news]papers still at least present the illusion that something other than pure opinion is expressed." (Richards) "A Free-net doesn't *replace* existing institutions - it actively *recruits* them to run SIGs." (Kutz, Jun. 23)

Free-Nets have the potential to help local businesses pool their resources to compete with larger chains

"Local businesses don't seem to profit all that much from having SIGs on a Free-net, or from the limited advertising opportunities available on a Free-net ( Wanted / Forsale etc. ). That's partly because most Free-nets don't allow businesses to set up a 'sales SIG', or sell information. All they can do, basically, is make 'free offers' to entice customers." (Kutz, Jun. 23)

Free-Nets provide more wholesome entertainment than other media

Respondents had a lot of trouble with the word "wholesome," and very few (Eleven, Lebovitz) felt that Free-Nets are more wholesome than other media, while far more (Ammann, Fifteen, Eighteen, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Ivany) saw them as an equally mixed bag. "I'd say Free-net as a whole provides more and better-quality *information* than radio or TV, and is generally considered a better diversion." (Kutz, Jun. 23)