The test site was a really good experience. Not perfect, but a good start! Funny, but the AI edited out these two lines that served to underscore the importance of the combination of 3 elements of government involvement/oversight of networks in general:
-Tesla and SpaceX being but two perfect examples where the original capital and support came from government, but a greedy capitalistic sociopath won't recognize that and hold to 1 and 2.
-Ultimately it leads to system collapse
OK, I buy into maybe filtering out "greedy capitalist" in the first sentence, but what is wrong with the latter conclusion? Again, both were meant to underscore the importance of combining all 3 elements.
Hello Elle, Josh, Debra Moffitt, Richard Reisman, Sam Liebeskind, Ginny Katz, and all. Please see/share our research from Captain Dan Hanley, Captain Rob Balsamo, Amber Quitno, Prof. Tony Martin, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and others and help us improve it if you can. Thank you!
All networks (physical and digital) tend towards monopoly unless there is a rebalancing mechanism or an economic stack tied to the protocol stack north-south between layers (app, controls, infrastructure) and east-west between boundaries; physical and virtual. The two questions to be asked are: 1) how do we make ecosystems (physical and digital networks) generative and sustainable, not "open and free"? and, 2) what got us to this place with a world of sociopaths and sycophants (individuals and corporations)? These are not just questions around social media regulation, rather all of our digital and analog networks. We need discussions around the right types of incentives and disincentives that are missing in those networks, which, if present, lead to universal access to information and reducing our growing wealth and cultural divides.
The internet was always meant to be free, and the easiest form of communication. Under the current stage of capitalism, all the biggest platforms ARE government controlled, and control governments. It's enmeshed in the corporatocracy of today. To truly democratise social media and the internet is impossible. You can't unpick the whole worlds power structure, and the data trapped within. A people's social media needs an internet 2 to exist
Free? The "free" aspect you speak of was: 1) a digital arbitrage of the analog "universal" telephone system in the 80s and 90s, and 2) a grift or hack of analog content and information systems (both intended or unintended). Both represent a "taking" if you will. Nothing is free in life. We can, however recognize the shortcomings of web 1.0 (and its spawn: ad-tech, social media, e-commerce, streaming, crypto and AI) and build networks that are universally accessible, generative and sustainable. None of that exists in any of humanity's current institutional frameworks (aka physical and digital socio-economic and polticial networks), nor can ever be arrived at via "open and free".
Once a social media company reaches the international scope point of our current giants, they should be brought under democratic control.
This can happen by making them report to a permanent rotating global citizen’s assembly (or every nation can assemble its own). This assembly would have full power over all aspect of the organization and would ensure that it reflected the needs of the people it serves.
Democratic control? What's the business model? How would social media look any different from the current reality of democracy + capitalism that has brought about a level of sociopathy and sycophancy never seen in history? Yes, it is that bad. This entire discussion over government intervention is a band-aid for a dying body. That said, government can play an oversight role in fostering interoperability and equal access to achieve universal service.
Elected governments should keep out of social media moderation and creating laws about what can and can’t be posted. Given the influence on the electoral process there’s too much conflict of interest.
Fortunately you can have democratic controls without elections. Randomly selected citizens have been show to be much better at representing the views of the populace.
I have had my account suspended twice and my information expunged at Nextdoor.com. Neighbors moderate individual posts, but it was Nextdoor.com staff who removed my account....this was the offending article:
The public should manage the internet. It is like products in a free market. Those that are good will thrive and those that are bad go by the wayside. If someone posts disinformation, somebody else can correct them. If I post something that I have gotten wrong, I seem to get corrections without hesitation and I like to be corrected, but I also like to banter back and forth and some sites don't seem to allow that.
The "public" of well-intentioned, but naive developers, did steward the original web 1.0 (aka internet). But their lack of understanding of unfettered free markets, digital networks and network effects and sociology and psychology is what got us to this juncture. Anybody can post any misinformation with no repercussion. It is well documented that one lie can be magnified a million times. So one person or a few people can't stop that. And it wasn't just the internet, but also monopoly digital access infrastructure (aka cable TV that spawned reality TV and fake news) and lastly distributed and then centralized gaming with its intense focus on winner takes all. Arguably all of these are 1-way or 1.5-way; not true 2-way, real-time engagement platforms. And combined, they've created a perfect maelstrom of individual and societal sociopathy and sycophancy. What we need are guardrails in the form of economic incentives and disincentives. There should be an underlying direct cost of sending something. Only then will individuals take responsibility for what they say, which in turn will foster an environment of generative, 2-way discussion.
The trouble with managing 'disinformation' is that it seems to be, selective! Everyone has a view and wants to push their own one. Even though most of us know some views are inhumane, others back them to the hilt. ...So who is to say what/whose government, private organisation, etc, should have overarching rights to moderation? What if they have it wrong?! The social media model is basically stuffed unless we personally have a sense of true right and wrong to begin with.
Much of social media's developers followed the precepts of Kahneman and Tversky to build their business models, namely around systems 1 and 2; the reactive (instinctive) and the reasoned (informed). Missing are the fundamentally separate moral and the emotional; systems 3 and 4. It is the evolved nature of all 4, but importantly the latter two, that truly differentiates us from other species and organisms. But when we step back and look at how all 4 govern human action in the face of uncertainty (aka what comes in the next moment or risk of the unknown and what we do) we then understand that there are many pathways forward and it is hard to judge completely and fully understand the actions of a moment ago. That is to say, we can't fully trust the outcome. There is always room for debate. So even if we trust something fully, risk never goes to zero. So apply this to moderation. The answer then is that no single moderation system or group can work. Rather, what is necessary for a sustainable and generative ecosystem, where risk of the next action is minimized, is one with built-in incentives and disincentives. These can also be used to rebalance the natural tendency of wealth and control (aka monopolization) accumulating at the core and top of ecosystems, while all the participants bear the costs. Otherwise we end up in a world dominated by people who take risks without regards for consequences (sociopaths and sycophants) that is aptly illustrated by the yard-sale model. In the end, well functioning networks reduce both individual risk and systemic risk; understanding that risk never goes to zero.
I really appreciate all the thoughtful comments, but I would encourage you to bring your enthusiasm over to our test site here: https://psi.newpublic.org/np/question/should-governments-control-social-media
Thanks in advance!
The test site was a really good experience. Not perfect, but a good start! Funny, but the AI edited out these two lines that served to underscore the importance of the combination of 3 elements of government involvement/oversight of networks in general:
-Tesla and SpaceX being but two perfect examples where the original capital and support came from government, but a greedy capitalistic sociopath won't recognize that and hold to 1 and 2.
-Ultimately it leads to system collapse
OK, I buy into maybe filtering out "greedy capitalist" in the first sentence, but what is wrong with the latter conclusion? Again, both were meant to underscore the importance of combining all 3 elements.
Interesting! I'll pass this along to our team. Thanks
Hello Elle, Josh, Debra Moffitt, Richard Reisman, Sam Liebeskind, Ginny Katz, and all. Please see/share our research from Captain Dan Hanley, Captain Rob Balsamo, Amber Quitno, Prof. Tony Martin, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and others and help us improve it if you can. Thank you!
https://michaelatkinson.substack.com/
Sincerely,
Michael
🦖
Thank you for having these important conversations! Your work inspires and informs me.
Me!
All networks (physical and digital) tend towards monopoly unless there is a rebalancing mechanism or an economic stack tied to the protocol stack north-south between layers (app, controls, infrastructure) and east-west between boundaries; physical and virtual. The two questions to be asked are: 1) how do we make ecosystems (physical and digital networks) generative and sustainable, not "open and free"? and, 2) what got us to this place with a world of sociopaths and sycophants (individuals and corporations)? These are not just questions around social media regulation, rather all of our digital and analog networks. We need discussions around the right types of incentives and disincentives that are missing in those networks, which, if present, lead to universal access to information and reducing our growing wealth and cultural divides.
The internet was always meant to be free, and the easiest form of communication. Under the current stage of capitalism, all the biggest platforms ARE government controlled, and control governments. It's enmeshed in the corporatocracy of today. To truly democratise social media and the internet is impossible. You can't unpick the whole worlds power structure, and the data trapped within. A people's social media needs an internet 2 to exist
Free? The "free" aspect you speak of was: 1) a digital arbitrage of the analog "universal" telephone system in the 80s and 90s, and 2) a grift or hack of analog content and information systems (both intended or unintended). Both represent a "taking" if you will. Nothing is free in life. We can, however recognize the shortcomings of web 1.0 (and its spawn: ad-tech, social media, e-commerce, streaming, crypto and AI) and build networks that are universally accessible, generative and sustainable. None of that exists in any of humanity's current institutional frameworks (aka physical and digital socio-economic and polticial networks), nor can ever be arrived at via "open and free".
Once a social media company reaches the international scope point of our current giants, they should be brought under democratic control.
This can happen by making them report to a permanent rotating global citizen’s assembly (or every nation can assemble its own). This assembly would have full power over all aspect of the organization and would ensure that it reflected the needs of the people it serves.
Democratic control? What's the business model? How would social media look any different from the current reality of democracy + capitalism that has brought about a level of sociopathy and sycophancy never seen in history? Yes, it is that bad. This entire discussion over government intervention is a band-aid for a dying body. That said, government can play an oversight role in fostering interoperability and equal access to achieve universal service.
Elected governments should keep out of social media moderation and creating laws about what can and can’t be posted. Given the influence on the electoral process there’s too much conflict of interest.
Fortunately you can have democratic controls without elections. Randomly selected citizens have been show to be much better at representing the views of the populace.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/
I have had my account suspended twice and my information expunged at Nextdoor.com. Neighbors moderate individual posts, but it was Nextdoor.com staff who removed my account....this was the offending article:
https://jonathanbrownson.substack.com/p/bezalel-and?r=gdp9j
I write about literally the church nextdoor to where I live but they bumped me because of "non-local political" content.
All that is to say, that there is no easy answer to your question...
Alas, paywalled!!!
The public should manage the internet. It is like products in a free market. Those that are good will thrive and those that are bad go by the wayside. If someone posts disinformation, somebody else can correct them. If I post something that I have gotten wrong, I seem to get corrections without hesitation and I like to be corrected, but I also like to banter back and forth and some sites don't seem to allow that.
The "public" of well-intentioned, but naive developers, did steward the original web 1.0 (aka internet). But their lack of understanding of unfettered free markets, digital networks and network effects and sociology and psychology is what got us to this juncture. Anybody can post any misinformation with no repercussion. It is well documented that one lie can be magnified a million times. So one person or a few people can't stop that. And it wasn't just the internet, but also monopoly digital access infrastructure (aka cable TV that spawned reality TV and fake news) and lastly distributed and then centralized gaming with its intense focus on winner takes all. Arguably all of these are 1-way or 1.5-way; not true 2-way, real-time engagement platforms. And combined, they've created a perfect maelstrom of individual and societal sociopathy and sycophancy. What we need are guardrails in the form of economic incentives and disincentives. There should be an underlying direct cost of sending something. Only then will individuals take responsibility for what they say, which in turn will foster an environment of generative, 2-way discussion.
The trouble with managing 'disinformation' is that it seems to be, selective! Everyone has a view and wants to push their own one. Even though most of us know some views are inhumane, others back them to the hilt. ...So who is to say what/whose government, private organisation, etc, should have overarching rights to moderation? What if they have it wrong?! The social media model is basically stuffed unless we personally have a sense of true right and wrong to begin with.
Much of social media's developers followed the precepts of Kahneman and Tversky to build their business models, namely around systems 1 and 2; the reactive (instinctive) and the reasoned (informed). Missing are the fundamentally separate moral and the emotional; systems 3 and 4. It is the evolved nature of all 4, but importantly the latter two, that truly differentiates us from other species and organisms. But when we step back and look at how all 4 govern human action in the face of uncertainty (aka what comes in the next moment or risk of the unknown and what we do) we then understand that there are many pathways forward and it is hard to judge completely and fully understand the actions of a moment ago. That is to say, we can't fully trust the outcome. There is always room for debate. So even if we trust something fully, risk never goes to zero. So apply this to moderation. The answer then is that no single moderation system or group can work. Rather, what is necessary for a sustainable and generative ecosystem, where risk of the next action is minimized, is one with built-in incentives and disincentives. These can also be used to rebalance the natural tendency of wealth and control (aka monopolization) accumulating at the core and top of ecosystems, while all the participants bear the costs. Otherwise we end up in a world dominated by people who take risks without regards for consequences (sociopaths and sycophants) that is aptly illustrated by the yard-sale model. In the end, well functioning networks reduce both individual risk and systemic risk; understanding that risk never goes to zero.