1) You strongly promote the democratization of computer-networks. How can
the internet - or other networks - improve democracy?

You are raising two different issues here. First of all we have defend
and extend the internal democracy of the internet itself. The open,
decentralized structure of the Net does not exist anymore, despite all
the myths that surrounds it. Most newsgroups are spammed and fewer and
fewer of the (new) users know how to access (and use) old features
like IRC, ftp or newsgroups. Most providers are actively killing the Net
by forbidding people to use telnet. Users have to behave like consumers
and should be happy with their reduced Eudora/WWW package. But for a
democratic culture we need to empower the users, not just a few
technicians. The commercialization has got to stop, otherwise we will end
up with the same old broadcasting models like radio and television. For a
democratic net culture it is important that we cultivate the back
channels, not only for text, but also for audio and video. We should
therfor fight all forms of push media and other stupid uses of the still
scarce and expensive bandwidth.
A non-democratic, corporate and state controlled internet can never
contribute to the democratization of society as a whole. It is therefor
crucial to uphold the Closing of the Net now, hack all firewalls,
break down the intranets and, for example, prevent universities from
setting up their own computer networks. The democratization starts with
the demand for public access and public content, on all levels. That is
democracy in the making.

2) You suggest to establish public networks which are not influenced by
politics and economics. Why does this require computer technology?

No, it does not. With little or no money everyone can start his or her
own pirate radio station. The same can be said of the use of a xerox
machine to produce your own magazine. It can even be a series of
meetings in-real-life, as netheads use to call them, gatherings in
meatspace. The computer, linked up with others computers, is only one of
many platforms we can use. The use of computers is now of strategic
importance, but has no special meaning. We can still influence the
concepts being used in this period of expansion of the internet. This
will soon be over, Then it is time to transform and move on, to others
levels, with other means.

3) Can you give an example, what could happen in these virtual public
places?

It will give more freedom to artists and activists, minorities and small
communities. But the richness of the media culture does not depend on
access alone. Nor is it only about hearing other, surpressed voices. The
public sphere should not be percieved as the political correct zone which
is there only to critisize the mainstream. Media freedom is also about
desire to decrease the influence of media alltogether. Meaningfull
communication always carries the dangers of professionalism and pedagogy
in it. We should stop speaking on behalf of 'the other' and a free and
'meaning-low' public environment is a good step into that direction.

4) The most popular concept of "cyber-democracy" are online-elections. Do
you think that it makes a big difference, if citizen submit their votes in
a ballot box or by e-mail?

With popular you perhaps mean mythical... This is in fact a very
primitive, Orwellian view on the matter. Voting used to be common in the
net community but has virtually disappeared by now. Electronic democracy
has got nothing to do with the myth of online-elections. Instead, it is
about making government document available online, wiring up the work of
the parlementairy commissions, on the local and regional levels, national
parlements until the still secret work of the Eurocrats in Brussels.
Most of the city halls do not have an internal computer network. The
same can be said of minesteries. Their databases are not open, not even
for internal use. Most politicians have no idea how to use a computers
and are unwilling to change this bad habbit, despite all their pep talk
about the Information Superhighway and electronic commerce. Most of them
are driven by blind, moral panic, combined with very naive models of
economic liberalism. They are scared by the idea that citizens can
talk back.

5) Politicians often seem to think that net-democracy is a one-way-street
to publish speeches, demands and party programms. What do you think of
those services?

It is perfectly legitimate for political parties to put all their material
on-line, like anyone else. But thats not the point. It is much harder on
the net to attract audiences then on television. That is still a
mysterious procedure, though this is changing rapidly with the
introduction of WebTV. In general we will see a defacto decrease in the
amount of channels. Only few companies will be able to buy the amount of
bandwidth and generate enough advertisement revenues to finance all the
required hightech plus prgrammers. So if the politicians will wait a
little longer, they can reappear again, thanks to Microsoft and CNN who
will be most willing to host them.

6) Television made a show out of politics. Aren't you afraid of an even
further trivialization of politics by the hyper-medium internet?

Yes, but who told you otherwise? Why did you believe the internet hype
of the last years in the first place? It is easy to watch the decline of
the Net and say that you have allways been right. The sphere of the
elected politicians can only further decline (mainly due to corruption).
I think that media cannot stop or even correct this process. The only
thing we can do is to establish an independant counter culture which
will be able to intervene here and there. We should not even be
nostalgic about the 'real' and serious level of politics that might have
existed a long time ago. The spectacle is about to take over the Net.
And is exactly what all business people and polticians have wanted. So
please, do not spoil any tears over all this.

7) Many people hope that the internet finally guarantees the freedom of
speech. Do you aprove? Do you share the fear that the net becomes a
platform for radical political ideas and activities?

The Internet is not at all giving us any guarantee about the freedom of
expression. It is a particular group of people, mainly in the late
eighties, that has established such an information culture, which is now
rapidly disappearing. In virtually all countries with significant use of
the Net there is regulation and restriction in the making. More and more
people have to use tricks and cannot just say whatever they like. We
have to set up free servers, so-called digital free havens for censored
materials in order to protect the culture that once existed. Everywhere,
people's e-mail is being monitored (also in your company!). Secret
services are permanently spying on us. Whole countries and continents
are becoming closed intranets, like in the case of Spain. So it is time
for radical action, against all these forms of surveillance and
censorship. Do not believe the stories about child pornography and
terrorist groups. It is ultimately you who they like to crack down. So
get organized, forget all the sunny utopias of mid-nineties and hit them
back, before it is too late. And please do not complain afterwards.