From 48e07f3f644ab43c7fca2e00a5de547ef213e6c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: alex Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:58:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add "Implicit feudalism. The origins of counter-democratic design" --- cliffs_notes/governable-spaces.md | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+) diff --git a/cliffs_notes/governable-spaces.md b/cliffs_notes/governable-spaces.md index 19ba2a5..0669148 100644 --- a/cliffs_notes/governable-spaces.md +++ b/cliffs_notes/governable-spaces.md @@ -37,3 +37,77 @@ https://luminosoa.org/site/books/m/10.1525/luminos.181/ * Widespread participation => burdensome, elitist, uninformed governance? Overwhelming to participants. * Sometimes governable spaces should be highly participative, in others, use representation. * Governance designs sensitive to economy of attention. + +# Implicit feudalism. The origins of counter-democratic design + +* A popular group that called for accountability had a flagship organization with a single board member. +* Facebook claimed having "the hacker way": open, meritocratic, but Mark Zuckerberg has majority control. +* Founders solidify. +* Early social platforms had technical conditions that grant administrators complete control. +* Use of "feudalism" is not historically precise. +* "Implicit" because it is not explicit. +* Sometimes platforms do not even allow transfer of power. +* Democracy can arise in feudal technologies due to pressure, this democracy can be similar to primitive democracy. +* But democracy in technology tends to go against the design, the most natural outcome is nondemocratic. +* Implicit feudalism is not a feature, it is merely seen as a non-intentional lack of features. +* First step: perceive lack of democratic features. +* "Exit" vs. "voice"; can only leave, vs. can change things. +* Exit can have costs => captivity. +* Refine voice into "Effective voice" vs. "affective voice" => venting vs. being able to make changes. +* BBS: runs in the sysop house, sysop has absolute power, but also most responsibility and maintenance burden. +* Users being able to leave makes some accountability. +* Limitations of real world (sysop responsibility) lead to implicit feudalism. +* Usenet was bigger scale than BBS, but ultimately "the big 8" ruled (and they named their successors). But Usenet hosted more popular communities than BBSs. +* Usenet hierarchy is decided by the big 8. +* Mailing lists follow similar patterns, administrators have all the power. +* In IRC, iconic channel/network names are a big factor in popularity over performance. +* IRC pioneered bots to execute authority. +* BBS, Usenet, mailing lists, IRC's structure follow that of UNIX, with root, etc. +* Linux and Wikipedia are very productive. +* Linux has BDFL (feudalism). +* Git seems to break feudalism with its distributed nature, but Linux uses a mailing list and the BDFL to control. +* GitHub promotes forks, and user voice in issues, but each project has owners and collaborators. +* Git/GitHub make "exit" easier, but not effective voice. +* Linux added a code of conduct, GitHub encourages project to have one. +* Debian Project Leader is elected, technical barriers of entry. +* Debian/Apache are outliers, non-profits. (Linux is a non-profit too.) +* Wikipedia also has self-governance, but also has BDFL. +* Wikipedia uses MediaWiki for governance (dogfooding). +* But most MediaWiki sites do not have self-governance. +* After Wikipedia's BDFL overreaches, BDFL has diminished power. +* Although software designs can have power vacuums, in the absence of technical software vacuums, "tyrany of structurelessness" often arises. +* Anyone could participate, but not everyone has the time, knowledge, and incentives. +* Big corporate platforms could not have the technical limitations of smaller earlier platforms. +* US Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability from user behavior. +* Companies could control the platform, but let communities self-govern. +* Facebook/Reddit are different (real names vs. pseudonyms) and in theory provide more control to users. +* Management of communities requires a lot of effort. +* AOL tried to reduce cost of access to voluntary moderators, but moderators realized they made benefits for AOL without sufficient compensation. +* To offload moderation to volunteers in a cost-effective manner, they are paid with unchecked power. +* Author thinks Slashdot moderation worked well and satisfied users, but failed in producing benefit from provocation/engagement. +* Facebook/Reddit grant "affective voice" through karma, etc.; but not "effective voice". Exit is the most effective voice. +* Facebook/Reddit provide moderation tools and gamify moderation (reports on groups performance to incentivize admins to maximize usage). This amplifies implicit feudalism. +* Mark Zuckerberg has power over the Facebook group admins, and engages in democracy theater (2009 referendum on changes to terms of service, required 30% of participation, only 29% achieved, declared "advisory", did what they wanted). +* 2015 "Reddit revolt", blackouts by making subreddits private. Reddit tightened their rules. +* Conway law => structure of software reflects the structure of the organization. +* Facebook/Reddit => the structure of the software shapes the structure of the organization. +* Facebook tried to go to individuals over communities, mirroring WeChat/TikTok which have no social graphs, only driven by personal habits. +* Because TikTok etc. do not have communities, there is less politics, but everything is still controlled by the company. +* Implicit feudalism => control over communities, founder authority, named succession, opaque policies/decisions, supression of user voice, user exit only effective means, only platform owners resolve disputes. +* Implicit feudalism made some sense with limited resources, but not so much with unlimited resources from large corporations. +* Implicit feudalism is part of the business model. +* In contrast, authocratic governments have more democratic "performances" because it resembles legitimate authority. +* But no major online community offers possibilities of even democratic "performances". +* Implicit feudalism is not so effective; most Reddits are small, Miecraft servers median lifetime is eight weeks. +* Exit leads to variety, choice, innovation, but effective voice leads to comitment and stability. +* Example of BDFL becoming inactive led to subgroups becoming more resilient. +* Debian does not exist in isolation; sits between Linux and Ubuntu (both with BDFLs). +* Ubuntu benefits from Debian. +* Debian/Wikipedia combine elections with meritocratic barriers. +* Self-governance seems to emerge more in nonprofits or cooperatives, mirroring ownership structures and technical infrastructures. +* Usenet has some shared governance and autonomy in newsgroups. +* Combination of different power structures helps self-governance; electoral processes + meritocratic barriers for popular but capable leaders. +* Multiple governance mechanisms helps prevent one entity from becoming too powerful, but also allows differently-skilled users from having voice. +* Python had PEPs, when BDFL retired they had some prior art in choosing their new governance, with elections. +* Disassociation/cancellation => no appeals, how long does it last? Affective, not effective voice. These things come because there is no process to challenge those in power. +* communityrule.info => online design of community rules and publication/forking. Try to make it easier to create self-governance. -- 2.47.3