1. Paul Romer's idea for a tax on targeted ad revenue made little sense in 2019 and less sense now. Musk decided to reduce ads on Twitter-X in favor of subscriptions without the hypothetical tax considerations at all (and few are arguing the service is vastly improved). A tax has no chance of happening in the U.S. And, as we saw, whatever the Administration wants from Big Tech, they don't need a tax to threaten them (they can threaten breakups, which are much more worrisome than taxes.
2. "Right now, there are examples within commercial platforms ... to which are delegated at least the moderation of their discussions." It's not just Reddit. Facebook does that as well. Most of the millions of groups operate with only scant oversight from the Meta overlords. The real problem with Facebook isn't the commercial ownership model per se; it's just that groups aren't well-architected for growth. Facebook could be charging groups small amounts to win their loyalty/participation (else groups would migrate to Slack and others). I don't know why. I don't think it's as easily explained as "they are addicted to their single business model of targeted ads." Modern successful companies don't do that.
3. "digital public infrastructure" -- I get the enduring appeal for this. I'm just skeptical anything will be built better than what's out there -- and, moreover, if one has a concern about digital infrastructure hosting extremists, well, we'd have a hard time keeping them out of the public platforms due to First Amendment protections.
4. "Why not build from the communities that exist around our public institutions, such as schools, colleges, community centres?" That's how the Internet started (from colleges, and schools). People wanted to engage in commercial pursuits, and I don't see us going back.
Also, missing from this post (and many similar analyses) is an understanding of *what exactly makes up civil society*. It is not quite "schools and colleges and community centers." It is decision-making organizations: political parties, advocacy groups, legislative committees, government advisory boards, nonprofit boards. How many of these are effectively using digital platforms today for actual organizational processes? Many, in my understanding, are still meeting-centric. We need to truly understand the needs of these entities in the service of Participatory Governance. I hope this book (or others in this space) covers this.
Regarding the proposition of a new public infrastructure "alongside" existing commercial platforms, I believe a more transformative approach is necessary. As articulated in "The Metaweb: The Next Level of the Internet" (https://www.routledge.com/The-Metaweb-The-Next-Level-of-the-Internet/DAO/p/book/9781032125527), the future of public infrastructure lies not alongside but above the web itself—a decentralized, hyper-dimensional "Metaweb" layer that reimagines how we organize, interact, and collaborate online.
This meta-layer transcends the silos of today’s commercial platforms, creating a shared, decentralized public space that fosters cognitive freedom and collective action—essential for addressing global challenges. The Metaweb concept underscores the critical need for public infrastructure that unifies rather than fragments our digital experiences. This idea isn't just theoretical; it's a call to occupy and democratize the space "above the webpage," unlocking unprecedented levels of accountability and collaboration.
It’s surprising that New_ Public hasn't yet acknowledged the insights from The Metaweb book. I encourage deeper engagement with its principles, as they align closely with the mission of reclaiming digital spaces for public good. This meta-layer vision is the leap we need to move beyond incremental improvements and fully embrace a transformative digital future.
Some thoughts:
1. Paul Romer's idea for a tax on targeted ad revenue made little sense in 2019 and less sense now. Musk decided to reduce ads on Twitter-X in favor of subscriptions without the hypothetical tax considerations at all (and few are arguing the service is vastly improved). A tax has no chance of happening in the U.S. And, as we saw, whatever the Administration wants from Big Tech, they don't need a tax to threaten them (they can threaten breakups, which are much more worrisome than taxes.
2. "Right now, there are examples within commercial platforms ... to which are delegated at least the moderation of their discussions." It's not just Reddit. Facebook does that as well. Most of the millions of groups operate with only scant oversight from the Meta overlords. The real problem with Facebook isn't the commercial ownership model per se; it's just that groups aren't well-architected for growth. Facebook could be charging groups small amounts to win their loyalty/participation (else groups would migrate to Slack and others). I don't know why. I don't think it's as easily explained as "they are addicted to their single business model of targeted ads." Modern successful companies don't do that.
3. "digital public infrastructure" -- I get the enduring appeal for this. I'm just skeptical anything will be built better than what's out there -- and, moreover, if one has a concern about digital infrastructure hosting extremists, well, we'd have a hard time keeping them out of the public platforms due to First Amendment protections.
4. "Why not build from the communities that exist around our public institutions, such as schools, colleges, community centres?" That's how the Internet started (from colleges, and schools). People wanted to engage in commercial pursuits, and I don't see us going back.
Also, missing from this post (and many similar analyses) is an understanding of *what exactly makes up civil society*. It is not quite "schools and colleges and community centers." It is decision-making organizations: political parties, advocacy groups, legislative committees, government advisory boards, nonprofit boards. How many of these are effectively using digital platforms today for actual organizational processes? Many, in my understanding, are still meeting-centric. We need to truly understand the needs of these entities in the service of Participatory Governance. I hope this book (or others in this space) covers this.
Regarding the proposition of a new public infrastructure "alongside" existing commercial platforms, I believe a more transformative approach is necessary. As articulated in "The Metaweb: The Next Level of the Internet" (https://www.routledge.com/The-Metaweb-The-Next-Level-of-the-Internet/DAO/p/book/9781032125527), the future of public infrastructure lies not alongside but above the web itself—a decentralized, hyper-dimensional "Metaweb" layer that reimagines how we organize, interact, and collaborate online.
This meta-layer transcends the silos of today’s commercial platforms, creating a shared, decentralized public space that fosters cognitive freedom and collective action—essential for addressing global challenges. The Metaweb concept underscores the critical need for public infrastructure that unifies rather than fragments our digital experiences. This idea isn't just theoretical; it's a call to occupy and democratize the space "above the webpage," unlocking unprecedented levels of accountability and collaboration.
It’s surprising that New_ Public hasn't yet acknowledged the insights from The Metaweb book. I encourage deeper engagement with its principles, as they align closely with the mission of reclaiming digital spaces for public good. This meta-layer vision is the leap we need to move beyond incremental improvements and fully embrace a transformative digital future.
The "Metaweb" concept is baffling and makes no sense.
Seems like it's just an effort to openwash some crypto DAO thing.