I'm interested in Reputation Systems.
What is a reputation system? Well, a reputation system is a program that calculates and communicates your reputation. What your reputation is based on depends on the individual system. Everything2's reputation system is based on writing good articles, so a good reputation can be translated to "this person's writings are worth reading." SF0's reputation system is based on submitting interesting praxis, so a good reputation can be translated to "this person's praxis are worth looking at." EBay's reputation system is based on satisfactory completion of sales, so a good reputation means "this person can be safely sold things too."
I personally feel that reputation systems will be pretty important, for two basic reasons. First, reputation systems help the internet do what it's good at. The way I see it, the internet is good at two things: transmitting data and helping people contact each other. Technically I suppose that people contacting each other is a form of transmitting data, but never mind that. The problem with that arises is, of course, that some of the data is bad (spam, viruses, boring things, etc) and some people are bad (trolls, predators, people who want to stab you, etc). Reputation systems can help with this problem - by allowing people to collate and display their opinions of people, it becomes easy to see which people are worth getting in contact with and which data producers are worth watching. So that's good.
The second reason is a bit more esoteric. Drawing on the ideas of David Ronfeldt, I do believe that networks working in concert are the next big thing, as big an event as the rise of capitalism with the industrial revolution. And I believe that reputation networks are an important part of allowing the collective intelligence of networks to reach it's full potential. They're a piece of infrastructure like banks are to capitalism - they facilitate effect working. For the simple reason that you're going to have the collective intelligence, who are you going to collect with? If you're engaging in dangerous or important work, the answer can't be "just anybody who wanders by." The answer that seems to be developing is "only people who can trust a lot," a trend that can be observed in John Robb's discussion of primary loyalities - because fourth generation warfare can weaken the state to the point where it can't provide services or protection, people fall back on their basic religious, tribal, or familial relations, binding together on these lines and abandoning more general connections.
It is my hope and belief that good reputation systems can undo this trend. Because at it's core, a reputation system allows you to trust complete strangers. Trust them to make you an honest sale, trust them to write good articles, trust them to act in an reliable fashion. And trust is an absolute requirement for cooperation. Once you're able to trust people then you can begin to work with them towards your mutual interests. Once trust is established, the ability to collective intelligence multiples a thousandfold. If you can create a powerful reputation system then you can start cooperating safely with vastly more people. I have an idea for what a powerful reputation system would look like, but that's for another post.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Thoughts Inspired by Non Zero
So I recently went and read Non Zero by Robert Wright. For a short summary of Wright's ideas, I'd recommend watching his TED speech, especially since I don't particularly feel like explaining the basic ideas. Instead I'm just doing to skip the thoughts it inspired in me:
One concept from Non Zero that I particularly liked is the idea that there are two basic things that impede non-zero sumness: trust and communication. Without trust and communication, the profit from non-zero relationship cannot be realized and all through out history new ways to achieving trust and communication have been invented, each one allowing greater non zero advantages to be realized. What I like about this idea is the way it fits so nicely into my feelings about Reputation networks (which I will get around to writing about some day)
Moving on to things I did not like, I find Wright's argument in favor for one-world government unconvincing because, paradoxically, of arguments found in other places in his book. Wright feels that a global government is the logical outcome of the progression we've made over the human history, a grand realization of our ability to exploit non zero opportunities. He feels that it's particularly important now that we face such global threats as global warming, international disease, and terrorism. My objection comes from his discussion of the medieval world. There Wright argues that the reason Europe was ultimately the party who conquered the rest of the world was because of it's political division. In China, exploration was begun but was ultimately shut down when the politics turned against it. In contrast, when Colombus was turned down by Portuguese crown when he asked for sponsorship of his voyages, he was able to simply get funding the Spanish crown. Under a many government system, if a government makes the wrong decision, another government will likely make the right one. Under a one government system, if the government makes the wrong decision it can doom entire civilizations. If a one-world government, a wrong decision could destroy the world. Wright gives the WTO as an example of the begins of the apparatus that will one day become a world government, but quite frankly I don't trust the WTO to make decisions for the entire planet. It is only through the sort parallel development* that division can bring can we truly find out what the right way to act is.
My general distaste for much of Wright actually suggests reveals, from my view, the ultimate failure of Wright's view. I mean, it's all well and good to observe the general trend of increasing cooperation and nonzero sum interactions. But what does this tell us about how we'll increase cooperation in the future? Nothing. I agree with Wright's fundamental point - we can probably predict that we'll continue to develop more and more ways to cooperate and more ways to reap the bounties of nonzero profits. But if you want to actually develop these ways of cooperation, the fact that they will be developed doesn't help you any. So it may be true, but it's not very useful.
And working from there, observing the trend in general doesn't tell you anything about ''what'' social technologies will continue this trend (outside of the basic principle discussed above). I personally feel that Wright completely fails to recognize the fact that the next big social technology is the collective networks people go on about. Getting back to world government for a moment, I completely agree with Wright that what we need right now is more global oversight over what's going on, to observe disease spreads and terrorism and all the rest of the vast incoming threats to life on earth. As Patrick Farley put it "It is now dangerous for even one person to feel oppressed."** But I'd say it's not coming from the social technology of the 20th century (government) but the social technology of the 21st (collective networks). Or more likely some clever combination of both. (For an example of how this might work in the case of diseases, I'd recommend looking at the first chapter of Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge).
Some lesser problems I have with Wright's basic argument:
The total lack of the Singularity. The idea is in there - he clearly admits that innovation is accelerating as populations increase and information flows more freely. But he doesn't seem to make the connection or feel it worth commenting on that we'll soon hit an interesting point were innovation out paces our ability to meaningfully predict it. An even smaller quibble is that I found his final chapter about consciousness and the possible theological implications incredibly boring - that's mostly because of my own personal interests and less about the case Wright makes.
Despite these objections, I would recommend Non Zero. It's an interesting and though provoking book. Go read it.
*I'm using the phrase "parallel development" where many people would probably use the word "competition." I do this because I feel competition is misleading - what's important isn't that each separate body is trying to defeat the others, what's important is that each separate body tries something different from the others and that bodies trying things that don't succeed either die off or switch to a tactic that is working. This is process, while competition implies a goal, the defeat of your enemies.
**I was sad to find that Patrick Farley's the Spiders has dropped off the web. It was really a very good piece of work. For a look into what's no longer available, you can check out this review.
One concept from Non Zero that I particularly liked is the idea that there are two basic things that impede non-zero sumness: trust and communication. Without trust and communication, the profit from non-zero relationship cannot be realized and all through out history new ways to achieving trust and communication have been invented, each one allowing greater non zero advantages to be realized. What I like about this idea is the way it fits so nicely into my feelings about Reputation networks (which I will get around to writing about some day)
Moving on to things I did not like, I find Wright's argument in favor for one-world government unconvincing because, paradoxically, of arguments found in other places in his book. Wright feels that a global government is the logical outcome of the progression we've made over the human history, a grand realization of our ability to exploit non zero opportunities. He feels that it's particularly important now that we face such global threats as global warming, international disease, and terrorism. My objection comes from his discussion of the medieval world. There Wright argues that the reason Europe was ultimately the party who conquered the rest of the world was because of it's political division. In China, exploration was begun but was ultimately shut down when the politics turned against it. In contrast, when Colombus was turned down by Portuguese crown when he asked for sponsorship of his voyages, he was able to simply get funding the Spanish crown. Under a many government system, if a government makes the wrong decision, another government will likely make the right one. Under a one government system, if the government makes the wrong decision it can doom entire civilizations. If a one-world government, a wrong decision could destroy the world. Wright gives the WTO as an example of the begins of the apparatus that will one day become a world government, but quite frankly I don't trust the WTO to make decisions for the entire planet. It is only through the sort parallel development* that division can bring can we truly find out what the right way to act is.
My general distaste for much of Wright actually suggests reveals, from my view, the ultimate failure of Wright's view. I mean, it's all well and good to observe the general trend of increasing cooperation and nonzero sum interactions. But what does this tell us about how we'll increase cooperation in the future? Nothing. I agree with Wright's fundamental point - we can probably predict that we'll continue to develop more and more ways to cooperate and more ways to reap the bounties of nonzero profits. But if you want to actually develop these ways of cooperation, the fact that they will be developed doesn't help you any. So it may be true, but it's not very useful.
And working from there, observing the trend in general doesn't tell you anything about ''what'' social technologies will continue this trend (outside of the basic principle discussed above). I personally feel that Wright completely fails to recognize the fact that the next big social technology is the collective networks people go on about. Getting back to world government for a moment, I completely agree with Wright that what we need right now is more global oversight over what's going on, to observe disease spreads and terrorism and all the rest of the vast incoming threats to life on earth. As Patrick Farley put it "It is now dangerous for even one person to feel oppressed."** But I'd say it's not coming from the social technology of the 20th century (government) but the social technology of the 21st (collective networks). Or more likely some clever combination of both. (For an example of how this might work in the case of diseases, I'd recommend looking at the first chapter of Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge).
Some lesser problems I have with Wright's basic argument:
The total lack of the Singularity. The idea is in there - he clearly admits that innovation is accelerating as populations increase and information flows more freely. But he doesn't seem to make the connection or feel it worth commenting on that we'll soon hit an interesting point were innovation out paces our ability to meaningfully predict it. An even smaller quibble is that I found his final chapter about consciousness and the possible theological implications incredibly boring - that's mostly because of my own personal interests and less about the case Wright makes.
Despite these objections, I would recommend Non Zero. It's an interesting and though provoking book. Go read it.
*I'm using the phrase "parallel development" where many people would probably use the word "competition." I do this because I feel competition is misleading - what's important isn't that each separate body is trying to defeat the others, what's important is that each separate body tries something different from the others and that bodies trying things that don't succeed either die off or switch to a tactic that is working. This is process, while competition implies a goal, the defeat of your enemies.
**I was sad to find that Patrick Farley's the Spiders has dropped off the web. It was really a very good piece of work. For a look into what's no longer available, you can check out this review.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Del.icio.us
I'm working on writing more, in sudden bursts with long periods of inactivity in between. In the meantime, check out the Metapolitic Del.icio.us, full of tasty links on all subjects that I have or will be writing about.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Hack Politics
“I define a hacker as an individual who experiments with the limitations of systems for intellectual curiosity or sheer pleasure; the word describes a person with a particular set of skills and not a particular set of morals.” – Bruce Schneier
Most people don’t care about systems. They care about results. They care about what gets done, not how it got done or why it got done. They spare little thought for the vast and complicated workings that support and shape their every action. When they want to get things done they interact with the system in the same ways they always have.
An example of how this attitude works out in politics: I attend a fairly liberal (ok, very very liberal) college. Every time elections come around, someone inevitably comes out to advocate voting for a third party, usually the local green party candidate. The two main parties, they argue, are hopelessly corrupted by big business interests and care little for the needs of most people. The two party system is inevitably denounced in the strongest of terms. By voting for the green party candidate, who probably actually does represent the positions of at least the student bodies interests, we can show the big party bosses what for and reclaim democracy. And all that good stuff.
And the thing is that they’re right. The two party system is corrupt and limiting and American democracy would almost undoubtedly be better off if we had more than two parties to choose from. The problem is that the two party system has nothing do with politics and everything to with the way the votes are counted. The existence of two major parties at the exclusion of all other parties is an inevitable and predictable outcome of the way the election system is organized. Third party candidates can never get major traction because the system is constructed in such a way that punishes anyone who votes for them, the punishment in this case being increasing the likelihood that their last choice candidate gets elected - like what happened to Floridians who voted for Nader. Now the voting system wasn’t intentionally constructed this way; it developed organically that way. If you want more than one party in power, you have to attack the system directly and replace it with a better system. Ignoring this fact about the system means that you’re just wasting your time.
The government, democracy, the media – these are all social systems. Vast, often corrupt, and highly complicated systems, systems that don’t work in the way or towards the ends that you were told as a child, but systems nonetheless. And as systems they can be studied and manipulated. If you’re unwilling to do so you’ll either end up at the mercy of those who are or with those who are currently in power still in power.
One group that (in my experience) does consider the power that economic, information, or government systems wield over our civilization are anarchists. But the most common reaction by anarchists is a complete separation from the systems of civilization – because they are corrupt or because they are currently being used towards immoral ends. This view is shortsighted. The engines of civilization are incredibly powerful. If they could be harnessed for good they could solve all the mankind’s problems within a single lifetime. And they can be harnessed for good. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to harness them and you’ll never do that by separation.
In order to harness the vast power of western civilization, you’ve got to be willing to experiment with them. You’ve got to be willing to hack around a bit. To make my meaning clear, when I say hacking I don’t mean just computer programming. I’m referring to exploration and manipulation of systems in all fields. It’s using things in ways they weren’t originally intended for and building new systems out of the parts of or inside old systems. Political hacking is political and social engineering done by small groups and individuals for fun and profit.
This is what I’m trying to advocate – the application of the hacker ethic to politics. Not just to politics though, to the whole spectrum of social systems that run our civilization. Because it’s not power we lack, it’s the ability to use it correctly. And the only way to figure out how to use it correct is by experimentation. We’re certainly not going to figure out if we let things lie as they are and with all the problems that the world is facing today, we need to start getting things right now more than ever.
Most people don’t care about systems. They care about results. They care about what gets done, not how it got done or why it got done. They spare little thought for the vast and complicated workings that support and shape their every action. When they want to get things done they interact with the system in the same ways they always have.
An example of how this attitude works out in politics: I attend a fairly liberal (ok, very very liberal) college. Every time elections come around, someone inevitably comes out to advocate voting for a third party, usually the local green party candidate. The two main parties, they argue, are hopelessly corrupted by big business interests and care little for the needs of most people. The two party system is inevitably denounced in the strongest of terms. By voting for the green party candidate, who probably actually does represent the positions of at least the student bodies interests, we can show the big party bosses what for and reclaim democracy. And all that good stuff.
And the thing is that they’re right. The two party system is corrupt and limiting and American democracy would almost undoubtedly be better off if we had more than two parties to choose from. The problem is that the two party system has nothing do with politics and everything to with the way the votes are counted. The existence of two major parties at the exclusion of all other parties is an inevitable and predictable outcome of the way the election system is organized. Third party candidates can never get major traction because the system is constructed in such a way that punishes anyone who votes for them, the punishment in this case being increasing the likelihood that their last choice candidate gets elected - like what happened to Floridians who voted for Nader. Now the voting system wasn’t intentionally constructed this way; it developed organically that way. If you want more than one party in power, you have to attack the system directly and replace it with a better system. Ignoring this fact about the system means that you’re just wasting your time.
The government, democracy, the media – these are all social systems. Vast, often corrupt, and highly complicated systems, systems that don’t work in the way or towards the ends that you were told as a child, but systems nonetheless. And as systems they can be studied and manipulated. If you’re unwilling to do so you’ll either end up at the mercy of those who are or with those who are currently in power still in power.
One group that (in my experience) does consider the power that economic, information, or government systems wield over our civilization are anarchists. But the most common reaction by anarchists is a complete separation from the systems of civilization – because they are corrupt or because they are currently being used towards immoral ends. This view is shortsighted. The engines of civilization are incredibly powerful. If they could be harnessed for good they could solve all the mankind’s problems within a single lifetime. And they can be harnessed for good. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to harness them and you’ll never do that by separation.
In order to harness the vast power of western civilization, you’ve got to be willing to experiment with them. You’ve got to be willing to hack around a bit. To make my meaning clear, when I say hacking I don’t mean just computer programming. I’m referring to exploration and manipulation of systems in all fields. It’s using things in ways they weren’t originally intended for and building new systems out of the parts of or inside old systems. Political hacking is political and social engineering done by small groups and individuals for fun and profit.
This is what I’m trying to advocate – the application of the hacker ethic to politics. Not just to politics though, to the whole spectrum of social systems that run our civilization. Because it’s not power we lack, it’s the ability to use it correctly. And the only way to figure out how to use it correct is by experimentation. We’re certainly not going to figure out if we let things lie as they are and with all the problems that the world is facing today, we need to start getting things right now more than ever.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Brave New War
“In fact, it was the opening salvo in a revolution […] In the coming weeks and months and years, these hundreds of thousands will be followed by millions, and this revolution will not be satisfied with overthrowing a corrupt and unresponsive political system. It won’t stop at remaking politics. And it won’t pay attention to national borders.
[…] Every institution that doesn’t understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they’re being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention.
The revolution comes for you next.”
–Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Before I start, I’d like to get one thing out of the way: John Robb’s Brave New War is an excellent book and everybody should read it. From start to finish it’s packed full of interesting, frightening, and important ideas and the problems and solutions found in this book need to be understood by everybody. Go get a copy and read it right now. Every single chapter of Brave New War holds important information for our survival in the twenty first century.
But I’m only going to talk about Chapter 6, the one on open source warfare. Open Source Warfare is a new way to run an insurgency. It consists of a large number of small, independent cells working towards a common goal (in Iraq, the common goal being the removal of American forces). While acting independently, all of the cells freely exchange strategies, resources, and intelligence among one another. Successful methods discovered by one group can be passed on the other groups, and useful techniques can quickly spread through the entire insurgency. Their open source organization allows the insurgents in Iraq greater flexibility and faster innovation rates than the hierarchical organization of the US military and this flexibility and innovation is what allows them to take on the world’s largest military and win. Although there are previous examples of this organization method, it has only come into it’s own with the war in Iraq.
If open source warfare were only a war phenomenon, it would still be a fascinating concept. But it’s not just a war issue. It’s part of a much larger trend, a trend for which we’ve hit a steam engine time right now. David Ronfeldt calls it ”the rise of collaborative networks.” David Brin calls it the Age of Amateurs. Jane McGonigal talks about 3rd wave ARGs and the Cluetrain Manifesto talks about markets as conversations. Despite the different language, it’s all part of the same larger trend - it’s just manifesting in different arenas and so people are coming up with the different language for it. At the heart of the trend modern communication technologies are allowing people to join together, pool resources, and work collectively towards whatever ends they choose – be it to design an e-mail program, figure out what’s happening to somebodies website, or kill the infidel.
What Robb adds to this discussion, what you can’t find anywhere else, is an in depth look at the methods behind this form of organization. Lots of people are talking about the effects or the potential of this trend, but so far only Robb provides a look at the basic principles behind creating, sustaining, and existing within these movements. And because Robb is talking about a specific example of a trend whose effects are spread out over almost every part of the human condition, he also provides basic principles that can, with a little work, be divorced from the specific realm of warfare and then applied to other realms. And once you’ve successfully applied those principles, you wouldn’t be out of line to expect similar success – specifically the ability for small, under funded groups to beat out large well funded groups. The particular realm that I’d like to try to apply these principles to is politics.
How exactly would you start on this? Well, for one thing, over the coming days and weeks I intend to look deeper into the principles Robb lays out in Brave New War and figure out how they can be applied to politics (so if you’re wondering “what exactly are the principles he’s so on about” just wait for a second. I’ll get to it). But there is another side to it. Returning to the substance of Brave New War, Robb points to the lowering of entry costs as a driving force behind Open Source Warfare. It is cheaper now to wage war, at least for the insurgents, than it has been ever before, for a variety of reasons discussed in Robb’s book. Low entry costs means that more people can participate and you can build up the momentum needed for an open source movement. But how do you go about lowering the entry cost of politics? What exactly are the entry costs of politics? The one thing I’ve been able to come up with is information, training, education. Most people simply don’t know how to put the influence on their government. God knows I don’t. So I’m looking in to it and I’m going to report what I find here.
In conclusion, I’d like to say once again that you should all go out and get yourself a copy of Brave New War. You owe it to yourself and to everybody else. It was at least good enough to inspire me to start this blog plus all the above rambling.
[…] Every institution that doesn’t understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they’re being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention.
The revolution comes for you next.”
–Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Before I start, I’d like to get one thing out of the way: John Robb’s Brave New War is an excellent book and everybody should read it. From start to finish it’s packed full of interesting, frightening, and important ideas and the problems and solutions found in this book need to be understood by everybody. Go get a copy and read it right now. Every single chapter of Brave New War holds important information for our survival in the twenty first century.
But I’m only going to talk about Chapter 6, the one on open source warfare. Open Source Warfare is a new way to run an insurgency. It consists of a large number of small, independent cells working towards a common goal (in Iraq, the common goal being the removal of American forces). While acting independently, all of the cells freely exchange strategies, resources, and intelligence among one another. Successful methods discovered by one group can be passed on the other groups, and useful techniques can quickly spread through the entire insurgency. Their open source organization allows the insurgents in Iraq greater flexibility and faster innovation rates than the hierarchical organization of the US military and this flexibility and innovation is what allows them to take on the world’s largest military and win. Although there are previous examples of this organization method, it has only come into it’s own with the war in Iraq.
If open source warfare were only a war phenomenon, it would still be a fascinating concept. But it’s not just a war issue. It’s part of a much larger trend, a trend for which we’ve hit a steam engine time right now. David Ronfeldt calls it ”the rise of collaborative networks.” David Brin calls it the Age of Amateurs. Jane McGonigal talks about 3rd wave ARGs and the Cluetrain Manifesto talks about markets as conversations. Despite the different language, it’s all part of the same larger trend - it’s just manifesting in different arenas and so people are coming up with the different language for it. At the heart of the trend modern communication technologies are allowing people to join together, pool resources, and work collectively towards whatever ends they choose – be it to design an e-mail program, figure out what’s happening to somebodies website, or kill the infidel.
What Robb adds to this discussion, what you can’t find anywhere else, is an in depth look at the methods behind this form of organization. Lots of people are talking about the effects or the potential of this trend, but so far only Robb provides a look at the basic principles behind creating, sustaining, and existing within these movements. And because Robb is talking about a specific example of a trend whose effects are spread out over almost every part of the human condition, he also provides basic principles that can, with a little work, be divorced from the specific realm of warfare and then applied to other realms. And once you’ve successfully applied those principles, you wouldn’t be out of line to expect similar success – specifically the ability for small, under funded groups to beat out large well funded groups. The particular realm that I’d like to try to apply these principles to is politics.
How exactly would you start on this? Well, for one thing, over the coming days and weeks I intend to look deeper into the principles Robb lays out in Brave New War and figure out how they can be applied to politics (so if you’re wondering “what exactly are the principles he’s so on about” just wait for a second. I’ll get to it). But there is another side to it. Returning to the substance of Brave New War, Robb points to the lowering of entry costs as a driving force behind Open Source Warfare. It is cheaper now to wage war, at least for the insurgents, than it has been ever before, for a variety of reasons discussed in Robb’s book. Low entry costs means that more people can participate and you can build up the momentum needed for an open source movement. But how do you go about lowering the entry cost of politics? What exactly are the entry costs of politics? The one thing I’ve been able to come up with is information, training, education. Most people simply don’t know how to put the influence on their government. God knows I don’t. So I’m looking in to it and I’m going to report what I find here.
In conclusion, I’d like to say once again that you should all go out and get yourself a copy of Brave New War. You owe it to yourself and to everybody else. It was at least good enough to inspire me to start this blog plus all the above rambling.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
What is Metapolitics?
Metapolitics is the politics of politics.
Metapolitics is the systems that constrain and define politics.
An understanding of politics will tell you what is happening and what will happen. An understanding of metapolitics will tell you how to make things happen.
Metapolitics is what I can get away with.
Stay tuned for writings along this general line.
Metapolitics is the systems that constrain and define politics.
An understanding of politics will tell you what is happening and what will happen. An understanding of metapolitics will tell you how to make things happen.
Metapolitics is what I can get away with.
Stay tuned for writings along this general line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)