beyond votes to voice
Joi Ito encapsulates some key trends in the Emergent Democracy movement in the talking points for his address to the forthcoming 21st Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin.
Since I started my first web site 10 years ago, we've moved from a vision of cyber-utopia to the lust of the bubble, to bust and back to a cautious optimism. Two years after writing my somewhat optimistic paper on Emergent Democracy we've seen blogs challenge the mass media, Wikipedia challenge the authority of encyclopedias and an American election heavily influenced by the Internet. I will speak about the impact that blogging and other social software is having on politics and free speech, and will discuss the US elections in this context.
At the dawn of the Internet, visionaries such as John Perry Barlow wrote about cyberspace challenging the sovereignty of the nation-state. We envisioned a kind of cyber-utopia which, to begin with, we thought we were making real. In a mad rush people flowed into the Internet, but the money they brought with them corrupted its open and collaborative nature. After the bubble burst, the money left and many people revisted the open, peer-to-peer nature of the Internet. (Indeed, some had never left.)
Many of the original dreams of the Internet were naïve, but with the benefit of hindsight, the maturing of open standards and the increased penetration of the Internet, a new generation of social software such as wikis and blogs are creating the conversations and dialog that we had hoped for 10 years ago. On the other hand, as the Internet becomes an increasingly critical part of the economy, governments feel that they must become involved in its governance in order to protect the public interest.
The age of mass media has crushed diversity and created a shallow culture. In particular, the focus of politics has been on voting, not deliberation or debate. As the Internet begins to provide people with a way to reach a wider community, it becomes increasingly clear that having a voice is more important than having a vote. People tend to over-estimate the short-term potential of new technologies and under-estimate the long-term potential. I will argue that although we are at risk of the Internet turning into yet another regulated channel, we have the ability to both prevent that and reverse the damage on culture and politics caused by monopolistic media.
And perhaps the dangers of intrusive regulation by government may yet be headed off, to an extent at least, by the user self-regulation of boundaries of digital identity and intellectual property that initiatives such as Identity Commons and Creative Commons have the potentital to facilitate. For doesn't true Emergent Democracy require emergent governance?


4 Comments:
I still don't understand what the big deal about "Identity Commons" is. I wish you'd blog about what you see in it.
From "the outside," here's what it seems like- a bunch of technical jargon, "opportunities" to buy into a namespace and get a "good short name without numbers," and a bunch of vaporware that's going to be centrally administered by some company.
When I look over to FOAF, I see a bunch of tech, how to use it, how to install it, how to use it yourself, and ideas about how to federate and secure that make sense. I see integration with a lot of software, and I see something that looks like a really good idea.
I think it's kind of weird that Identity Commons is trying to tie themselves as kin to Creative Commons. Are they *really* related, organizationally? It doesn't *seem* like it, because the ethic of Creative Commons is on clarity, open participation, and all these things. We don't wait for market opportunity message to come out of Creative Commons; We just look at the website, and what you see is what you get.
So, I wonder a lot about this Identity Commons. I'm willing to believe that there's something there, and that it's worth working with. But they're just not showing us a whole lot, beyond "here's a bunch of tech-tech-tech, and here's something where you can pay to get a name early."
They haven't invented the idea of federated trust. I can go with FOAF and see just that.
-- Lion
Lion,
Without a "chaordic" governance scheme like Identity Commons to delegate responsibility for authentification to i-brokers and thence to federations of brokers and finally to a governing body, surely FOAF has similar authentification issues to PGP cross-signed keys: there would be no way to verify a FOAF user's identity other than to labouriously authenticate it via sequential friend-of-a-friend connections. It seems to me that the fluid and modular hierachical governance and data-exchange model of Identity Commons, Sxip et al is a potentially much better fit for the emergent and multi-dimensional community structures we are surely all hoping to facilitate in the social web.
Lion -
I agree that it's difficult to try to figure out what the "big deal" is about Identity Commons. I've been working with Identity Commons for over a year and I still can't give a concise definition of what it is they are doing. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. First, let me address some of your other comments, and then I'll come back to this main one.
Wearing my 2idi hat, yes, at the moment we're "vaporware," but the code will be on SourceForge (GPL/BSD dual licensed) by mid-January. It will be administered by a consortium of developers that will start off as us (since we developed it) but I would like to see transition to the open source community as soon as possible. Our goal is to get the software out there, not to control it in any way.
I really appreciate the goals of FOAF but I also see the problems of trying to shoehorn security into a system that was designed without any thought of security. Bandaids such as SHA1-ing mbox addresses or creating a set of FOAF files, one for each contact, are fraught with problems. I suggested one way around this - using i-names in the mbox field - but that ends up being a kludge - why not just use i-names?
I don't think that we are trying to place ourselves as "kin" to Creative Commons, though we are in talks with them about how we could help them create a system for people to manage their own artistic portfolios better. And we also want openness and clarity in our operations. The standards we are based on are open (LAMP, XRI, XDI and SAML/Lasso) and we maintain open mailing lists for discussions of XRI/XDI specifications, IC Development and general issues of the IC Community. It is not for lack of trying that we don't have more community involvement, but since 1) our product is not really available yet, and 2) we don't have the support of a trusted organization like the W3C (yet) we tend to be greeted with suspicion (understandable, given e.g. the Passport experience). But hopefully we will gain that support and trust, as i-name technology is free, open, standards based, fully decentralized, and the governance is community defined and administered (if some communities choose no governance, that's OK).
This brings us back to what the "big deal" is about Identity Commons. While working on OpenPrivacy I found that a system that gave people total control was mathematically possible, as long as you has a user base that was alert, aware and responsible. That knocks most of us out, at least at some point in our lives. Identity Commons aims to fill the void by providing a framework for the emergence of chaordic, member-driven governance that meets the needs of each separate community. What this looks like is hard to describe, as 1) there aren't any i-name communities (yet), so 2) there aren't any members to define what sorts of community governance they need. Things a community could decide include what external sources of email will they accept (community-based spam filtering) and how to create and manage reputation metrics. It's a wide open field that is just starting to get touched by a few initiatives. I-names and Identity Commons provide a totally free and open framework within which these ideas can be developed further.
=Fen.LabalmePS: I took a brief look at your LocalNames project - very cool. I've been planning on implementing Pet Names for use by personal i-brokers. How would you compare and contrast these systems?
(This is Lion.)
I have a lot of technical reading to do; I don't know most of the acronyms you used in your last comment.
That said, I don't understand what the problem with FOAF is; It seems like any strategy that you could persue by any other system, you could also persue by FOAF. If we are going to construct huge collections of trusted identifiers, I don't see why those identifiers can't be the URLs of FOAF descriptions.
I don't understand why verifying connections from person-to-person is so difficult; Especially when you can go "up" to the group level, and then see if groups recognize each others' trusts. The idea here is that, there are far fewer groups to manage, then there are people. You could even take it further, with super-groups.
But, I haven't studied this a long time; This is just my intuition; I can be taught otherwise.
---
As for Local Names & Pet Names, the structures are near identical.I essential difference is: Local Names exists. That is, it is implemented, and I'm actively developing and promoting it. (Is that important?) You can use it right now.There are surface differences: The use cases envisioned on the Pet Names page are very different than the use cases I promote for Local Names. For instance, Pet Names envisions that we'll use the system mainly to hide our names for things. That seems kind of strange to me. It's cool to imagine that one day, we could all speak our own individual tongue, with wildly different words for common everyday things, and machines will just translate the differences between us. It's neat. I like transhumanism. That's cool. But, I don't think that's reality for at least 50 years now. For the time being, in our pre-subdermal-computing-cyborg era, we like to share our language in common. Local Names is built with this assumption in mind. Practically speaking, that means I've focused more on the namespace description format, than on transport issues (how do we conceal the pet names? how do we transmit only the keys?). Also, I've built tools that make it easy to record not just target URLs, but the names used to think them as well. For instance, there's a text replacement tool, that you can use to write text making use of Local Names. Things like replacing [[local names]] with local names. It works like most wiki: You say the word, surround it in brackets, and it links it. If you want, you can override the name with some other words. By the Pet Names vision, only URL's (or "keys") are transmitted, and then the client would rename everything into Local Names again.
But those are surface details. By architecture, the two systems are near identical. You could build the name hiding scheme using Local Names, and you could build the name revealing scheme by Pet Names. The difference is in what's manifest.
Why don't I work on Pet Names? Because: There's no established project. I don't see any activity. I don't see anybody going out, trying to garner use and support. It seems to be tied to E. There's no spec for namespaces and bindings, the most important things. By the appearance of the Pet Names web page, the technology is just in the "idea" stage. The use cases don't seem very grounded in reality. I wouldn't use the system as described, I don't think anybody would, except as a novelty.
So this is why I work on Local Names. I've made an open project. You can see the activity on my blog. I'm actively going around, asking for ideas, suggestions, and making changes based on what people say. The technology is implemented. There is a spec for namespages, how you bind names to URLs. The use cases are bounded in reality- they come straight from wiki, and InterLinks. I already use the system daily, and several people are playing around with it. Many hands have used and contributed code.
So, I think that's the essential difference. If Pet Names had those things, I'd work Pet Names.
Is there anyone in particular that you believe I should be talking with? Is there some direction you believe Local Names should take? Is there something missing from Local Names, that, if it were there, would incline you to lend your voice to Local Names?
-- Lion
Post a Comment
<< Home