« Monster.com's Something Network Service |
Main
| Users Drive Policy »
December 23, 2003
Cory's Request
Posted by Ross Mayfield
Cory Doctorow:
The last twenty years were about technology. The next twenty years are about policy...The next twenty years are about using our technology to affirm, deny and rewrite our social contracts: all the grandiose visions of e-democracy, universal access to human knowledge and (God help us all) the Semantic Web, are dependent on changes in the law, in the policy, in the sticky, non-quantifiable elements of the world...
On that note: I have a special request to the toolmakers of 2004: stop making tools that magnify and multilply awkward social situations ("A total stranger asserts that he is your friend: click here to tell a reassuring lie; click here to break his heart!") ("Someone you don't know very well has invited you to a party: click here to advertise whether or not you'll be there!") ("A 'friend' has exposed your location, down to the meter, on a map of people in his social network, using this keen new location-description protocol -- on the same day that you announced that you were leaving town for a week!"). I don't need more "tools" like that, thank you very much...
Cory is right about our task to foster new social contracts (provided we don't forget that
code is law). And on his request, if a tool weakens social capital more than it strengthens it, its doomed from the start.
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Will Davies on December 24, 2003 11:45 AM writes...
"If a tool weakens social capital more than it strengthens it, its doomed from the start."
Isn't that the opposite of the truth? Doesn't recent (and maybe less recent) technological history suggest that tools are successful precisely when they *relieve* us of our reliance on one another, and foster independence? Robert Putnam's work on social capital argues that social capital in the US is in decline, at least partly because of the isolation that cars and televisions make possible and bearable. Transport and telecommunications networks are notorious for severing communities, not strengthening them. Social software may buck this trend to an extent, but it doesn't challenge the sovereignty of the individual to construct his or her social life as he or she sees fit which is a radically individualised vision of community.
Permalink to Comment2. Jeff Axup on December 25, 2003 4:56 PM writes...
The other part of Cory's post which is being so widely cross posted is "Stop trying to build an Internet without malefactors, parasites, freeriders and inefficiency. There is no such thing as a parasite-free complex ecology ".
Since there's apparently no way to post comments on DiePunyHumans, I'll post it here. While I like the principle of software ecologies and the concept of systems naturally developing attackers, people seem to be missing the point that there are healthy systems and unhealthy systems. Systems become unhealthy and spoiled when they lack sufficient protection. Usenet is an example of this. System and interface design affect how software can be used. A technology's design increases certain types of behavior by enabling it and making it easy. (e.g. guns are designed to kill - so selling them increases murder rates, Kazaa makes file trading easy - so giving it away increases illegal sharing). Spam exists because the architecture of the net allows it, there is no fixed identity built into the system and there are no disincentives built into it. Simply accepting abusability and denying technologists' responsibility for intelligent system design is not the way to go.
Permalink to Comment3. Lucas on December 26, 2003 6:49 PM writes...
Cory is one of those reactionary, sellout ironic hipsters who is so in love with his contrarian irony that he eventually starts to think it makes sense.
Or else he is highly self-aware and is just playing us all for fools. Either way, it is best to ignore him.
For a brilliant (though reactionary) expose of his type, read "The Flip-Flop King":
http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=8768
Permalink to Comment4. Ross Mayfield on December 28, 2003 11:05 PM writes...
Well said Will. Will expand upon this line of thought...what's different is the level of feedback enabled today...and will try and reflect Jeff's point.
Lucas, I've enjoyed your comments, but this ad-hominem is baseless.
Permalink to Comment5. Lucas on December 29, 2003 5:29 AM writes...
Sigh, you're probably right Ross. I need to stop reading into things, and breath before I post... My apologies...
Permalink to Comment6. Matt on December 29, 2003 4:48 PM writes...
No need to apologize I think, it was not that bad, wasn't it guys? Be nice :)
Permalink to Comment7. Ross Mayfield on December 29, 2003 6:51 PM writes...
Its all good, just want to keep the right things impersonal
Permalink to Comment