Information Abundance and Governance.

I have written before about how an abundance of information can overload a government's ability to cope. I took the technologists to task on the meaning of the information. As statistics or other information is by itself useless, the actions taken in reaction to the information is what is of primary importance. A democratic government grows from the relations among all of its peers and not just from those who are popular. 

Now I know the technologists are not thinking about governance when they posit theories on how best to deal with overload; however, I feel that these ideas should be addressed for what they are, and what they say about online behavior and how that might hobble a model of Open Sourced Government. 

I have trouble accepting the strictly "historical" approach to information overload as explained by Clay Shirky, this views our information glut as just another development, and we just need to beef up our information filters. He goes on at length how we have always been overloaded with a glut of information.

Shirky is right to a degree, however his argument doesn't seem to fully come up to speed with the retweet. Cory Doctorow's view takes this "retweet" factor into account.

As Cory explains it, popularity is the measure of all, he says as much in his article, Information overload? Time to relax then. How does he deal with the information crunch? Doctorow won't even bother to look at it unless the information has been pushed up in popularity. In essence we all do this, when we engage in online browsing. The web filters information though both algorithmic searches and manual selections.  Now I think this is all well and good within the context of a culture of overabundant media. However, if we were to apply this logic to governance the outcome can become quite chilling.

To put it simply, a Congressman can be held accountable for his actions, software cannot not. In the current idea of democracy a congressman or a MP is the one who the complaint is addressed to and it is up to that person to address that grievance as he or she sees fit. If they don't do well addressing the complaint then they can be voted out as soon their term is up. 

It all comes down to meaning. The congressman weighs the grievance based upon the available information and the progress of the government. The representative is then the one that makes a decision as to what if any action is taken. If action is both warranted and workable then they will act. If they do not then they can be held accountable for their non-action. My point is that we have person in charge and not a set of algorithms.

This is why I feel any idea of open source government will not progress beyond theory. Any modification of democratic government that makes extensive use of technology risks the loss of personal accountability.  Technology is a two way street, and any filtering method based on popularity will disenfranchise a certain number of grievances. This can lead to the hijacking of the process by a vocal minority. After all, we have that nagging question as to just how secure modern technology really is. So how would we know that all the "popular" grievances are legitimate?  We should not rely on popularity alone as a tool of governance.

Don't get me wrong, popularity has its place in politics. But  popularity isn't the sole function of a government. My last post addressed some other issues with open source governance models. Through these times of rapid technological change, we must ask ourselves, do we really want to be governed by the tweet? Do we want to "open source" our government to the point that there is no recognizable government? Proponents of open source governance must ask themselves this question. Who or what should we place our public trust in? Technology or a fellow human?

Open source governance proponents may wrap their theories in the rhetoric of mass populism, yet they ignore the fundamental popularity or "retweet" filter as explained by Cory Doctorow. This ignorance and blind faith is troubling in and of itself; yet, there is even more at stake. The internet is a powerful bull of a tool, and it shouldn't be pranced about willy-nilly, as a cure all, in the china shop of our democracy.

Limits of Open Source Governance Models

I have recently taken a look at the idea of Open Source Governance. Much is made of collective wisdom and power of online societies. Implicit is the idea that the institution of modern networking technology is inherently good for all. I view this as a dangerous misconception.

The idea of open source government is a very noble and egalitarian one; however, as one moves past theory towards application the infeasibility of the approach becomes apparent.

1) The Hardware Barrier: Open Source Government (OSG) is predicated on the existence and functioning of technological hardware. This hardware carries a cost that not all, (either individual or societies) can pay, sure there are sources of shared hardware, but Open Source models imply a continuous engagement between citizen and governor. Any equitable Open Source Government model must address this, in a meaningful and not-discriminatory manner.

2) Decentralization: This might be one of the most difficult issues with OSG models. The technology that the web is built upon has allowed people to engage in many discussions over policy that might be outside of their local, state, or nation-state. This may be a net positive in some instances (read middle east), but this belies the potential problems of this approach. What part, if any, should a British citizen play in the application of American Law? I would venture that many people would appreciate non-interference. Any model of OSG must incorporate some check on geography. 

3) Anonymity and Honesty: This goes hand in hand with decentralization. How do we know you are who you say you are? This is easy enough in local jurisdictions, as one must present proof of ones identity in order to register to vote. By opening up the discussions to those beyond the local in question we open the door to outside contamination and possible hijacking. Indeed, even the use of electronic voting machines has generated similar concerns. This will be a very difficult barrier to overcome. Or else we  risk a conspiracy inside our nascent democracy. It is worth noting that all current attempts at "OSG" have all been within tightly controlled locals, any expansion beyond a small geographic area brings with it an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse.

4) Exclusivity: Aside from the issues revolving around technological hardware, there is a depressing little amount of study of society online. How exactly do we behave online? Is this behavior inherently better or more applicable to governance? I have harped on the lack of roads online, and I think this problem magnifies in importance when we discuss open source government. Open Source projects are exclusive, the amount of contribution that one may give to any Open Source project is relevant to the experience of the contributing individual. A programmer can naturally do more then a simple user. OSG will naturally produce a similar barrier of exclusivity that will undercut its populist rhetoric.

5) Lobbying and Collective Bargaining: So does information technology inherently make it easier to organize? The general consensus is yes; however, I believe it does this too well. In other words the internet allows those who are part of an out-group to join an otherwise insular in-group, as I've mentioned before, it depends on the forum's censor. So should this be allowed? It should not, right? Do we want distant, uninformed, opinions coloring the reality of hard local choices? OSG must address this as well.

I don't want this to be read as anti-federal. My concern here is if one person in California has an opinion on the conditions in a small town of Tennessee, should their opinion be allowed to be voiced in the "open" forum?           

6) Prior Existing Institutions: So what exactly is wrong with the current system? It's a question worth asking of our democracy. Is there really a case to be made that our current systems (Representative and Parliamentary) truly and deliberately disenfranchises large segments of the population? If so, have there been any attempts at redress? We must ask ourselves this first, as we deal with what is and not with what we want things to be.

The Web's Censors At Work: Nir Rosen

It seems Nir Rosen has had a bout with the web's censors. This is the sort of thing I have been trying to elucidate. It's OK to NOT be a journalist and engage in crude humor, but it seems sometimes, almost at random that different people are held to different standards.

Emphasis in this quote of Rosen's response, is mine. 

I'm baffled by the fact that 1,000 new people started to follow me on Twitter. What do they expect to read? It's a bizarre, voyeuristic Internet culture and everybody in the mob is looking to get in on the next fight first, to be at the center of the thing that's happening, even if there's nothing really there. Which might explain the thousands of stupid e-mails and tweets I have received from the mob wanting to get a punch in. But given that I have been condemned for seeming to condone sexual assault, it's surprising how many hundreds (no exaggeration) of people have e-mailed me wishing that I or people close to me will be sexually assaulted.

....

There's probably some larger lesson about social media to be drawn here, and how its immediacy can be great in its power to connect us, but also a liability because something blurted out and not meant to be serious acquires a greater power. Then, an offensive joke can be seen as an ideological manifesto, gallows humor can be seen as a serious support for sexual assault. I only wish this had been apparent to me before I hit enter.

We have this odd idea that the web is completely "free" in the abstract conception of the word. This view however fails to account for the social costs underlying the network. Indeed, many people champion this aspect of the web, but that doesn't always make this force a Just force. As a matter of fact there is no arbitrage to be had. We are continually constrained by our peers.

So rather then concerning ourself about the lowest common denominator of law on the Internet we should concern ourselves with the society of both the web and the underlying "local". Here the very locality and geography of the of Main Street will scale part of what might be an otherwise "scale free" network.

Such was Rosen's fate. He became the story when a certain segment of society reacted to his tweet. Such is the dark social cost of the web, where reputations are everything, and mistakes may never be forgiven. It is all playground callousness, and playground reputations. We should be thankful that this tendency mostly contains itself to the "local" society, underneath the scale-free network.

How Does The Tail Swing? For the Common Good, or Money?

Yesterday's post got be thinking about the "long tail" of the internet. As of now, most work concerning this distribution has been directed towards the study of various business applications. large corporations like Amazon and cottage industry alike make use of this concept. Zeynep, of http://www.technosociology.org expanding from the work of Shirky & Anderson, has also studied such a distribution in terms of nodal popularity over the internet.

This view makes the internet mostly "flat," as per Thomas Friedman, excepting those instances when there is a spontaneous spike in popularity. Zeynep, wishes to apply this explanation to the emerging leaders of the revolution; however, there seems to be no reason to not expand this further and apply it to the entire revolution.

It all sounds a bit odd, if strangely true, to state that, "things are flat, except when they're not."  Yet this is how the online world seems to work. You are either held in esteem or you're not recognized at all. I am most interested in what factors lead to the selection of a topic as popular. I relate this to my previous post on website censor's (webmasters).

---

The selection of content as censored per the webmasters is the only material from which "popularity" can be drawn. Up until Facebook successfully managed to place a part of its website on others (the "like" button), people "liked" sites by visiting them (the classic page view counter of the 90s). And as people browsed the web they could rely on only two means to expand their knowledge: existing cross-referenced hyperlinks, and search engines.

The only way to visit a site is to either search for content or to link to the address. The fact the internet has no roads has led to the extreme importance of the search engine. The search engine fulfills a similar, but not an equating, function to a concrete road. A search engine does not fully overcome the existing censor problems inherent in a website. Rather search engines are relied upon for the power of their censor. We want a search engine to censor out all irrelevant content. The method and manner of this, and the way money might affect this process is of great importance.

Now it is easy to see how the issue of money might tip the distribution in favor of itself. If money or its secondary effects, buys you a higher spot on the listings the company with money is bound to have an increase in hits. Zeynep has identified three separate mechanisms of possible popularity rankings growth: Random, Meritorious, and Preferential Attachment. In theory the search engine promotes just meritorious growth. However, I suspect that in practice that it, as any website, supports all three.     

So what conclusions can we draw from this? Money, if applied correctly should naturally raise the popularity of certain and specific information. These moneyed outlets serve as major reference points for the rest of the information on the web. Thus the choices that Google and Yahoo! as well as the Mainstream Press make have great potential to affect the outlook of people who uses a search engine's services.

The effects might appear subtle, yet they are are far reaching. Any decision to limit search terms no matter how slight is not technically held as a matter of public trust. Google is company, not a government, and as such it behaves not for the good of the public but for its own interest (no matter their propaganda or rhetoric). Such is the trade off that people make, as they distrust their government more then they distrust private businesses. This is another example of what I mean when I say there are no commons online.

It is a bit bittersweet then, that the search engine is the closest online equivalent to a "commons" and that there is no law except Google's law. Now many might mention the Creative Commons here as a counterpoint. In many instances it would be relevant; however, in this case it is not because I am not interested in what constraints are placed on the use of the information, I am only interested in "how" the data was located.  And in this way the internet becomes a powerful shaper of perception in ways so subtle that people may never notice. And only in rare instances will the population's mass, as a whole, focus on an issue long enough to temporarily disrupt the status quo.     

So we can see that websites and information may start low down on the tail, but after climbing so far a certain amount of money (or a certain amount of grassroots action) must be infused in order to sustain its position. The more money, the easier it is to climb higher on the information stream. The more money the easier it is to acquire more "property" (Web-space), Ads, rankings and other cross-referential traffic drivers (or more local participants)  This is why we must ask ourselves, just how does the tail swing? For the common good, or towards the money?

The Censored Web

This diagram, as simple as it may be, shows the relations of various actors to a single web page. It is important to grasp the fact that any webpage or any series of webpages are controlled by the webmaster (note, this simple model assumes that the "webmaster" is also the "owner" of the webpage).

The simpleness of the diagram belies the power behind a webpage in singular. That webpage can be as controlling as seen fit by its owner or webmaster. It is almost as if the webmaster is a "censor" in the old roman definition of the term. He after all he controls: membership (census data), and morality (terms of use & comment policy), he also may or may not control finances.
 
As a singular node a webpage can be very powerful. The webmaster has complete control over what are the topics of discussion and what is or isn't acceptable content. So when taken individually webpages can be surprisingly closed and coercive (see, and attempt to comment on Sarah Palin's Facebook Page). There are also other possible effects of peer pressure and social manipulation by the "validated" membership.

To my mind a member is considered "validated" if he is a regular contributor and is held is good standing by users of the web site. Also, perhaps more importantly, some who is "validated" must pass muster with the webmaster or moderator. The final step is of course the users registration with the website. This voluntary relinquishment of personal data will result in the granting of an avatar by the webmaster.
   
Many of you might think that this is a small, innocuous, and possible onerous point. I am in fact arguing a point of custom, but this line of questioning isn't without reason. The data use and membership policies of Facebook have been in the news at numerous intervals throughout the site's meteoric rise. And that simple little diagram above has earned Zuckerberg a fortune.
  
Of course there is more at work here, there isn't just one webpage or a single webmaster. Rather there is an entire "ecosystem" as characterized by Zeynep Tufekci and others. This is perhaps the largest redeeming factor of the singular webpage's censor, there is no such thing as a single webpage.

Indeed the culture of the internet contains a certain amount of diversity. But that diversity is limited to either those who can afford to overcome the monetary barriers to entry or those who are can organize offline, this means that the internet reinforces the predilections of either those with money or those with lots of friends or associates close by: that is cities and "local" crowds. Thus, if you're neither, you're nothing.

This brings us full circle to the "property vs communication" issue. Who owns what you say? let's ask the censor.

Understanding Egypt: Self-Association and Preferential Attachment

I am reading this post on "leaderless revolutions" on http://technosociology.org. The post discusses preferential attachment and its relations to the growth of importance of a node on network. And the ability for certain nodes to become extremely important and for hierarchy to grow spontaneously. 

I have discussed a similar issue I have termed "self-association." The two ideas are similar but are not the same. Preferential attachment is most interested in the quantitative value (the "how many") of a node. While self-association concerns itself with the motivations behind an individuals choice to join the said node.

The two terms are complementary as the concept of preferential attachment exists in a scale free environment, and self-association provides that missing measure of scale, through the only means available, the lens of the individuals members of the node in question (the "why").

I think that any full understanding of the role that social networks played in Tunisia, Egypt and the Middle East will only come by combining these two measures. Combining this data also might help us sort out and elucidate the values that geography, culture, and other local concerns may play inside a scale free network. After all the ability or "rating" of leaders is often a consensus based approach (rate my teacher et al.) whether in public or private. And as such we can expect that national and local leaders will in fact maintain a level of importance.

Some people are only able to contribute some small way to the overall cause. The "scale" in "scale free" networks is expressed through the individual and those choices. His or her level of contribution is then aggregated inside the network.

I am arguing that "scale free" networks are in fact scalable, but only outside of the said network. The traditional mechanisms for understanding aggregated scale does not work with such networks like the Web. Instead we have to find the "scale" that is hidden behind the design of the network. In other words we need to find the overarching and motivating factor behind the popularity of the node in question. Some nodes might scale cross cultures (lol cats) and others might be strictly regional affairs (Tunisia, Egypt). Whatever the case may be we cannot understand scale free networks without understanding the motivating factors and hidden scales behind those nodes growth.

The Know Factor: The limits of General Knowledge and the Internet.

As I have been browsing the subject matter I came across Twenty reasons why it's kicking off everywhere by Paul Mason. He clearly states that he is generalizing and for the most part I think he gets it right, I of course think some points need clarification.

I think Mason needs to be more on point about just how and when people like myself might start a revolution. I've been out of work, destitute, and living off of the generosity of others for a while now. Yet I hardly feel that my brethren and I will lead a "revolt" anytime soon. Mason needs to account for this. Am I part of the intelligentsia he refers to or am I a just destitute "graduate without a future"? Actually, (in a cross cultural context) I'm both and he is missing the explanatory mechanism for this pivot point within his argument. More precisely by looking at only the large picture he is missing the subtle, yet pivotal, differences between different cultures.

After that I have a few major nitpicks with some of his generlizations.

Therefore truth moves faster than lies, and propaganda becomes flammable.  

In what context? In repressive regimes? In all regimes? This is too broad to be useful, even in a "general" context. General to what? Self-associated Online Groups? Where is the proof of this conjecture? I think it is well documented that large companies have made use of online influencers. What high profile industry watch-blogger hasn't gotten a product of two for "review" on their blog?  Now this might or might not fit Mason's conception of "propaganda" but we need to take a serious look at this conjecture, that all truth travels faster then all lies. The facts just don't support this as a universal. I am prepared to accept the quoted statement above, when and if, Mr. Mason decides to provide the appropriate cultural and contextual support (ie, the truth is faster then lies in a dictatorial regime). I am not sure if this is or isn't Mason's implication, but like all pundits of the 2.0 he leaves the question far too broad and ill-defined.   

This is another shot in the dark.

6. Horizontalism has become endemic because technology makes it easy: it kills vertical hierarchies spontaneously, whereas before - and the quintessential experience of the 20th century - was the killing of dissent within movements, the channeling of movements and their bureaucratisaton.

Again to what situations is this applicable, just dictatorial regimes or does this imply democracies as well?

And this is particularly contentious with me

8. They all seem to know each other: not only is the network more powerful than the hierarchy - but the ad-hoc network has become easier to form.

As if those of us who aren't radically mobile political trend-setters need to be reminded how the nationalist voice of our own problems is stolen by the cosmopolitan, well-fed and city-bound intelligentsia! As I've stated earlier, I have a foot in both worlds, so what world is the real?  

The world looks more like 19th century Paris - heavy predomination of the "progressive" intelligentsia, intermixing with the slum-dwellers at numerous social interfaces

And what sir are you! And what am I! and what good does this do! You don't even hear my voice! As you ignore it at the expense of your own bias and interest! You don't even know enough to know what you might be missing. There is more at work then the information that gets funneled and possibly distorted by the internet.

As I've said before Mason gets a good deal right, but he ignores the details that make the differences. I think it is dangerous to view the web as a true association or corporation all its own. We just don't have enough data to determine how relations work over the web. We don't know the extent or the factors or even the context to put it all in. And any attempt such as Mr. Mason's just stokes the political firestorm without contributing to the general enlightenment of the masses or the definition of the reality of the situation. Broad sweeping generalities didn't cut it before the internet, I see no reason to think the internet has given us a right to start doing so, simply because we lack the important details relevant to the reality of the situation.

EDIT: Link to a piece by Glenn Greenwald, I read such an article to mean that corporations are acutely aware of what propaganda is and how it works. This goes back to my first nitpick. In what context is Mr. Mason claiming that it is a social law that the truth travels faster then lies? It might be the case in a capitalist society that the opposite is true, and where the "propaganda" or "lies"  aren't just from the government but also from the corporate sector.

Information Overload: A Response to Cory Doctorow

I can't speak to the political situation in England, just as I am equally at a loss for such knowledge of Egypt. I can see such events and protests as part of a larger picture, but all the small and important details slip me by. This is a truism for the vast majority of those who are not English, or Egyptian, and it  highlights one of the most odd and perverse features of the internet, overload. This concept has been beaten to death and all without any lasting satisfaction of justice. Now we can finally come to terms

This question has led to all sorts of fears and worries about society and the outcome that this hyper-connective technology may have on our brains and our kids brains, Frontline just ran a special. Both Rachel Dretzin and Douglas Ruskoff did a great job surveying this problem but unfortunate for us they kicked the conclusions down the viewers, they clearly were afraid to draw any  inference no matter how small. It is as if these two were overloaded with information whilst discussing information overload. This is all the more unfortunate given the mighty weight we attach to information in modern times.

Frankly, we need to clear this technological minefield. Cory Doctorow in his most recent Guardian piece in a slightly ironic way attacks the English Government and its new push to make its governmental data and information transparent. Now I have to admit I was a bit taken aback by his ferocity. He titles his piece, Government data like crime maps is not enough – there needs to be action at the heart of this title is the forceful if implicit admission that information of its own accord is often of little or no value. He cites Sukey as a counterpoint to the slow and sluggish government.

For those of you who don't know Sukey is designed to provide realtime information to protesters and allow the to avoid being "kettled" or cordoned off and then slowly let out few at a time.

Now most people nowdays should share Cory's view that information by itself is useless. And this is where I point out a gapping hole in Cory's reasoning. First he seems to have developed the unreasonable assumption that because a few are in a position to process data that everyone should be able to do the same.

I first point to the difference in the quantity of information: Sukey is provided input in near real-time by a large number of people, the crime statistics on the other hand are gathered off of patrol data and are collected after the fact. In other words Sukey is the many watching the few and the Police statistics are the few watching the many. Still, I must ask what good is real time data of a burglary when Mr. Doctorow insists that the police should have predicted it? It just doesn't square, lest we are forced to look into solutions that might violate anyone's privacy.

This leads me to the second problem I have with this article. In regards to almost all disciplines we are all laymen. Given we all have our individual specialties but we on the whole are not educated or equipped enough to fully interpret a massive influx of realtime data. Information is now moving too quickly for even the interpreters to translate all of it at once. Just like, our kids can't focus long enough to write an essay or read a book. This critic is mostly aimed in the political vein, in the old paper based or broadcast model we had an intermediary who would translated the data or statistics into terms understandable by the laymen.

Now, as laymen we lack the full context and knowledge of the experts on whatever might be happening. Cory's argument encompasses this when he mentions Mr. Humphrys, and his anger over the uninterpretable and rather useless data. Now I agree here the data is a waste and there seems little point in having it without an interpretation. However, if we expand beyond this little example guess what? You've got the rest of the internet. Full of useless and often untranslatable data. How could anyone know enough to be an expert in all these fields all at once?        
 
Then, it is vapid egalitarianism for someone to insist that a government or even a whole species should be able to process the sum of its politics into action. It should be understood that much of the data produced by governments is by its very nature un-interpretable to the stock and trade laymen. Sure if you are a politician, a professor or a columnist you can make good political use of such statistics but what is any data to a laymen? Its just data, cold and useless crime stats. What should the government do in response to the crime stats?

Well its debatable right? That's the heart of governance right, debate? How can a government be more responsive when what the data means has to be fought over first. Its an intractable problem that no amount of research or technology will ever solve.  

Mr. Doctorow's column highlights the depths of the problem. Here is a technology pundit who, even as he rails against his government, simultaneously asks that government to solve this most perplexing technological & human relations problem of the modern age.

A government is nothing but its politics, and I would be frighteded by such a government that would have such powers of action that Mr. Doctorow proclaims. After all a government is supposed to be measured and responsive to all, and not just some. Super responsive reporting and action has the power to rend detailed understanding from anyone and everyone, and attacks the very heart of a benevolent government. If a government acted all at once for all it's citizens, then it wouldn't be a government, it would be mob.

How should a government be responsive in the information age? I really think that the internet will not change government response, yes information will become more transparent, we will be able to see more of the cogs in the machine but that doesn't mean that all that information suddenly makes us engineers of our own personally responsive government. Some may not like the idea of social order or the police's attendant function in that regards, but that doesn't mean that we should bend or break society just because our government can't act on all the information provided it.

The Elusive Weak-Tie Change.

Near as I can tell the belief in the power social networks revolves around just how powerful social ties can be over the internet. I have proposed a way to study this below, even if I don't really have the resources to execute it.

I am a bit put off by the idea that these very social networks prefer to ignore the facts at the expense narcissistic reputational gloating. But I suppose shouldn't concern myself too much with the high-profile peanuts in the gallery.

I think the critics of Gladwell at least owe us a definitional explanation. Gladwell in his work at least sought to define how people relate. And It is obvious that Gladwell's critics have not thought-out things quite as throughly. Most of their complaints seek to attack either one part of the whole or to spin the entire argument in a different direction. None of these critics seem to question the existence of "strong-ties"  or "weak-ties" or alter the fundamental definitions thereof. Yet, somehow, that is simultaneously what they wish to argue against.

Now Gladwell's critics have their work cut out for them. Too much was made of the headline, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted." The critics now must somehow prove that the "revolution" was in fact "tweeted". Simply because people used twitter does not make it the instrument of change. After all if that was the case then why just Egypt and why not so many other repressive regimes?  Surely there is more to this picture then people using a somewhat awkward social connection site? Right?

I honestly don't know, but whatever happened in Egypt seems to have had more at work then just young and disenchanted wired folk. That view is just too simplistic and idealistic to be the whole truth. The tacit support and silent consent of those who are older speaks volumes to the true extent of what the protest is just the major symptom of.    

So I must ask Gladwell's critics before they declare outright victory to define the relationships at work behind the revolution in Egypt. Is there a third class of social-tie that Gladwell isn't accounting for? If so how does this third class of social-tie behave?  And how did that social-tie turn into a social-force? It's a tall order, that the critics shouldn't take it lightly. So critics, for sanity's sake, get your facts straight before you gloat as if you were nine and back at your grade-school playground. 

       

Commons, What Commons?

The more I think about the nature of the internet the more cryptic the matter becomes for me. I am sad to report that there are no pristine "commons" online, rather it is all an urban sprawl of competing issues and money. The only commons that exist online are the ones made by man, a sort of Central Park of Enlightenment.

A few weeks ago I started this blog after an engaging discussion with Thomas "cmdln" Gideon. In that discussion we both seemed to have completely different perspectives.  I have taken a much expanded stance on the matter. Thomas was, rightly so, concerned with the success of the Creative Commons and its ability to establish and maintain lively exchange and creativity within the commons.

I agree with this assessment, but I was attempting to apply the the term "commons" to the entirety of the the Internet. In a sense I was arguing that the only "commons" that are currently accounted for are the Creative Commons.

The rest of the internet is still a giant publicly-viewable space with little common regulation. This makes the web a sort of wide open communication space.  Where ideas are posted for all to view publicly; yet people still stake claims, however slight or benevolent, to what views are expressed or shared below that publicly viewable opinion. This impedes free expression no matter how slight, or inconsequential.

As I've suggested before there is no real consensus as to what is classified as "communication" and what constitutes "property". And in the middle of this problem is another, the internet has no roads, or in other words, there are no "commons". There are no neutral websites or even borders! Each and every web site must be owned by someone, a "club member". And that website is next to an infinite number of other websites. There is no common ground.

This is all contrary to a classic view of the commons that has at its heart an idea that there is territory beyond the influence of humans, the forests, mountains and other lands. The internet of course has none of these, all "terrain" online is developed by humans. Every last bit of it is private enterprise.

The point of all this, is that we cannot rely on the classic definition of a "neutral" or "common" territory or terrain

After all a true commons would have absolutely no barrier to intangible communication, we should be free to say whatever we like wherever we like, within the bounds of law (If a tree falls in the woods...). However this is not the case, every website on the internet has a different standard as to what is allowed "communication", and to what extent that competing statements might be regulated. To be blunt, there is no such thing as a First Amendment online. All speech is held at the behest of the web-master of whatever web-page you are on.

I find these odd and competing sentiments confounding, and as we cannot view whole internet as a commons I am unable to confirm my thought that the internet is a "common" or shared entity. Despite the desires of the founders of the internet, they designed a deeply flawed social system. They failed to foresee the problem of property vs. communication, and they left no part of the system as "common" to all (in fact, ironically enough they actively fought against such a notion). They designed the internet to be a collective of privately held and privately run fiefdoms with no commons between them and that is unfortunately how things stand today.   
 

Proposed Methodology & Individual Influence Chart

This chart is expanded from the original I posted last week. In this expansion I believe that I have taken the chart to its logical conclusion. I have graphed, from the perspective of the individual, all sources of influences.

I am contending that the sources of local influence: geography, social circles, family and local mentors all exert a larger influence over individuals then contacts that are strictly over social mediums. This seems self-evident, however personal preferences can sometimes follow no apparent pattern.

The only way to approach and quantify the problem is probably through the use of targeted surveys to develop an understanding of an individual's relations to political issues that are both "local" and "not local." It would be good to survey self-associated groups as we might find some interesting data. A first generation immigrant would be a good example of someone perhaps having certain emotional connection to "not local" issues.

We then can develop several classes of connection.

1. People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to "not local" politics.
2. People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to "not local" politics.
3. People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to "not local" politics.
4. People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to "not local" politics.
5. Other situations not otherwise in aggregate 

• People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.

Now this is where things get difficult. Simply knowing a persons preference towards their issues-du jour is not enough. We also need to know what if anything these people have done in actualization of their politics. Have they rallied or protested? Have they raised money? Response bias might run rampant here. We also must account for the possibility that an individual might have moved. After all it makes much more sense for an Egyptian Émigré to care about issues in Egypt then does a small town American.

As we develop the data and start mapping it we might be able to gauge how strongly or weakly geography, and local influencers might affect politics in aggregate. As I suspect that even those who do care strongly about "not local" issues might also have a geographical explanation.

If we develop data sets like this we could also try and shine more light on the functional ties within a network that practices either open source war, or  online political rallying.    

Avatars

Property vs Communication: Open Source's Challenge to Goverment

I can think of no more contentious issue then that of property, yet the problem is more then just that, it is both much bigger and has sharper teeth. It's the dinosaur in the room no one wants to talk about.

Like it or not our culture, society, and state has become steeped in the ideas of property. And indeed it is this idea that threatens to tear apart the modern world at the seams. The varied meanings of the word are telling, and indeed Wikipedia has a 12 section page devoted to it's definition.

At the heart of it all is the fact that "property" has a legal definition. And in many respects it is the legal definition of that word that is at stake and not the common definition. Beyond this simple idea of redefinition there is also the much talked about way that society supposedly reacts to, or treats "property."

The example I am thinking of here is the idea behind file-shareing and piracy. Many of those who spend significant amounts of time online contend that the way society reacts to this new definition of property is actually beneficial in the long run to that property's owner and/or producer. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence and some research to back up this claim, in certain instances.

The problems we see around us right now relate to digital property rights, and certain steps have been taken to help mitigate the situation (see Creative Commons). For the most part this system seems to work for the average user or small group. The Creative Commons does this not by "redefining" property but by merely redefining our individual relations to it. This system still allows for the originator to control his derivatives in a much finer grained way then does the traditional copyright system. This power has been recognized by the adaption of the term "copyleft."

However, what has not been addressed is what this workaround might entail for governing actors. Sure copyrights and copylefts protect individuals' work and derivatives yet information doesn't always behave like property. Its kind of like a photon, it has properties of both a wave and a particle.The definition of "Information" carries with it a possession of both concepts of legal property and open communication. The internet, and the copyright debate, have brought this conundrum to the surface.

I can think of no greater modern challenge to governance then the contention between "Owned" and "Open". We have a constitutional issue. What should win out when we decide to deal with publicly trusted structure?  

Traditionally the government does not  enjoy the same or similar protections it provides its citizens. And it seems that the ideas on this are a dime a dozen. Does the Government enjoy ANY protections? Netizens in such situations are much less forgiving.

With the Wiki-leaks Scandal this issue shot to the forefront. What does the open-derivatives model mean for the operations of our own government. To fall back on traditional themes, the "People" are technically supposed to be the ones who have ultimate ownership of the government. Yet, we must ask are the People entrusting the government with their property or their communication?

Some Netizens have taken the view, both shared and popularized by Julian Assange, that governments are made up mostly of Information and as such they should hold no secret. This worldview takes the view that "information" is merely communication and thus should arbitrarily be free of its own accord. The Government has of course tried to emphasize the other definitional characteristic of "information" and has clarified its position as theft of government property.  

This debate shows no signs of abating. Is information "property" or "communication" or is it somehow both but holding different standards for different actor's and entities. Until more definition is applied to the problem we will all remain in the dark with no light in the distance.   

The Geography of Main St.: Meatspace vs. the Internet

Everywhere in meatspace there is a Main Street. Pick a town, pick a city, pick anywhere, and there is probably some geographic equivalent to a "main" street. On this street you probably have any number of shops, restaurants, and other businesses. And the most amazing thing about all those businesses is that they are connected by a street. Not to be glib, but geography matters.

It matters in ways we don't necessary think about too. A Street is a powerful and long-lasting technology. A street allows the movement of goods, and connections amongst people in meatspace. This makes a street a powerful tool of expression. The Street is what allows people to vote in their districts and remain active at their gym, or to swarm and protest. Yet above all  these myriad of uses, a street is a sign of an ordered civilization.

Why do I feel the need to belabor this point? The internet in all of its connective power lacks any organizational equivalent to a road. There are so many choices that are all right next to one another, yet there is nothing that connects one place in the virtual world to another. All journeys on the internet are "single vehicle" and thus are highly personal. I don't see the traffic headed to whatever location I choose to visit. I don't have to fight lines or other cars looking all the while at people's frustrated expressions.

Now most people see this as a good thing, and in most senses it is, excepting one, The internet for all its other self-organizing characteristics, cannot organize groups in the powerful ways a street can. It is impossible to drive a campaign wagon up and down the pathways of the internet, no one would see you. The internet is an infinite number of locations with no roads connecting them in an orderly fashion. There is no "in between," you are either on one site or on another.

This small fact, as innocuous as it is, is the downfall of all cross-border political causes. To put it another way people must be motivated by something outside the web, they must have an emotional connection with the politics at hand. And solid emotional connection only comes with geography.

Some will argue that people do donate and participate in cross border causes. They are correct, but my point isn't to deny those expressions. I am saying that these cross border donations are all made at the individual level. The people who donate don't know the others who make the same online donations and, as I stated previously they are invisible to each other. There is no emotional connectivity that would normally be provided by a street and seeing all those people in one place at one time.

The internet by its very design, will never be able to accommodate the organizational and political power that Main St. is able too, anywhere.

The Perils of an Un-Governed Web

The internet revolution has brought many things to us. One of those is an idea that action, speech and commerce on the internet should be completely free of regulation, oversight, or involvement of government actors. This is choice that, if enacted, will not be without consequences.  Though the technologists might have the best of intentions; Their insistence on ignoring those other online voices that they disagree with cannot bode well. The Technologist's elitist and exclusive claim to future matters of internet governance undercuts the very values they claim as their own.

Perhaps the internet will chose self governance but we will never know if we don't engage everyone: the process needs to be inclusive and not elitist and exclusive as it is now. The haphazard way that groups currently use to approach the matter is perilous in its own right. Just because the information is public doesn't mean that it is reasonable to expect everybody online to have read it, or to even be interested in reading it. It bears asking, What right do these non-governance advocacy groups have to claim unilateral jurisdiction of such a broad based entity like the internet?

I know this position will strike some a politically odd. That is part of my point, the very act of choosing non-governance is in-and-of itself an act of governance. The right to self determination should extend to all users and not just to those who flaunt themselves as the would-be leaders of the revolution. Lets not forget how much this is desired and sought after in (and extolled endlessly when these advocacy groups mention) meatspace. The power to vote and to have a say in governance is a right for all, not just the elite. 

So I ask the Geeks, the Technologists and the Elite Hackers, why is this power, and this idea, not accounted for in this push for self-governance on the internet? It as if every last one of you all wish to become the kings, queens, dukes and ladies of the web; a sort of virtual aristocracy over the normative values of the internet. This at it's heart is a perversion of the very values you claim as your own, its not YOUR internet, its EVERYBODY'S internet.  

These advocacy groups by pushing their chips into the pot now must suffer from the same criticism that they make of the current governments. Truly who is ANYONE to claim such broad unilateral rights? Self-Governance alone cannot break the power of the trusts. We need an internet that establishes a comfortable and normative environment that doesn't allow for libertarian exploitation by either corporations or individuals. And quite frankly there is no other way to do so other then to work with governing actors, and not against them.    

I know the internet freedom advocacy groups believe in democracy, one vote for each person. It is deeply hypocritical and unfortunate that they should chose to ignore such due process simply because of the new architecture and pristine nature of the virtual domain. It is truly tragic, really, that such educated elite wish to choose anarchy, and individual exploitation or perhaps worse, unilateral fiat over the web. hackers could do well to become more socially inclusive and less elitist, or else the future of society on the web might well become what they make of it; elitist and purposely non-inclusive.

Self-Association & Another Failure of Intelligence

Association, as expressed by the individual, is perhaps the hardest matter to define when discussing the internet. Durkheim was interested in working relations among professionals. The massive amount of commoditization that has gone one since his time has stretched the definition of "work". This is especially relevant given that Durkheim sought to apply his ideas on the "division of labor" much more broadly then to just organized professional workers. I have elaborated on this idea below.

Self-Association is purely motivated by individual self interest. When thinking about security matters, self-association allows a security professional to narrow his thinking and determine what exactly he is dealing with. As I write this I am thinking of both Tunisia and Egypt. As amazed as the analysts were at the suddenness of the entire affair, they should have been prepared. After all, as the mainstream reported after the fact, there are groups (The April 6th Movement) who made their issues known online.  

Really there is no excuse for the surprise that was shown by the Western World at the situation in Egypt. The truth was there was a great deal of pressure building already and we can just as well consider the original self-associated members of the April 6th Movement as suggestive of much deeper and long running problems within the Egyptian State.

To get to the point, and get past theory, Self-Association can almost always be traced to some sort of shared local motivator. So despite the vast fears of spreading unrest as predicted by many proponents of Open Source War. The Technology itself isn't where our attention should be devoted. Yes it is important, but the internet and the self-associated groups that use it are only an expression of some real world motivator.

The internet cannot generate something from nothing. If it could then Iraq would still be overcome with Open Source Insurgents. Rather as of now, thanks in large part to GEN Petraeus's strategy; that smartly reduced the number of local insurgent motivators, the insurgency has now been greatly diminished. So despite what the Open Source War Zealots would have you believe, the internet and its associated technology doesn't create matters on its own, it only exacerbates existing problems. Dynamic networks only catalyze around larger preexisting local problems.

Analysts should heed this fact, and try not to place Technological Praise or Theoretical Blame where it is not due.