How would we know if the net is behaving as a self-ordering system?
Traditional regulators tend to assess the "self-govenance" of the net by
asking whether the "internet industry" is adopting voluntary "codes of
conduct" or otherwise following rules of the sort that governments would
be comfortable imposing (or uncomfortable not imposing) by regulation.
But there is a big difference between "self-ordering" and "self-governance"
or "self-regulation".
-
Self-ordering involves the development of new forms of social order from
the bottom up. It may not produce the same rules as a top down political
process. It may tolerate more diversity than can be built into statutes
or even "codes of conduct".
-
While self-ordering empowers end users, it is not the same sort of "self-determination"
found in democratic theory and does not rely on delegation of state power
to representatives who deliberate on behalf of a citizenry.
-
Self-ordering may encourage "self-restraint" on the part of potential wrongdoers,
but it relies on various "enforcement mechanisms", such as software filters,
access controls, and banishment, to deal with those who do not exercise
self-restraint -- so it is not dependent on universally shared and widely
observed ethical norms.
Self-ordering systems tend to migrate towards a "sweet spot" part way between
chaos and rigid order. To determine whether the net is self-organizing,
we can look to for evidence that, at various different levels, it is developing
mechanisms that preserve a balance between random disruption and established
structure. Such evidence might include the following:
-
Web sites cluster in well known "domains" -- but it is possible to establish
new ones.
-
Valuable content, collected at well travelled sites, receive a large portion
of web traffic -- but some users can post or visit extremely unconventional
sites.
-
Antisocial actors can launch viruses or send unsolicited commercial email
-- but large online service providers and software vendors are developing
more and more effective ways to filter out such destructive code or unwelcome
messages.
-
Large databases can be used to invade privacy -- but new tools are developing
to limit the disclosure of personal information.
-
Geographically-based local jurisdictions can assert the right to regulate
all online activities accessible by their citizens -- but globally accessible
web sites can demand agreement from visitors that they will resolve disputes
by arbitration or in specified fora.
-
Contract terms governing access to particular web sites are within the
control of a large number of different, decentralized parties -- but well-formulated
terms and conditions acceptable to end users tend to proliferate and, indeed,
are often compressed and crystalized in the form of trusted labels.
-
Offensive and obscene material can be uploaded by anyone, anywhere -- but
new filters and appropriate labels on web sites render it less likely to
intrude on those who are not looking for it.
-
The net makes it cheap to copy proprietary materials -- but contracts between
end users and the operators of online sites can prohibit infringement and
provide for deletion of infringing files and banishment of users who violate
the rules.
-
The net allows relatively anonymous and pseudonymous interactions -- but
it also allows low cost creation of global reputations.
-
Defamatory statements can be rapidly and widely disseminated on the net
-- but so can answers and corrections.
-
The net allows scams and frauds -- but it also provides a low cost channel
for consumer education.
Self-ordering systems tend to "take on a life of their own". Their emergent
characteristics are relatively unpredictable -- certainly not capable of
being infered from a reductionist inspection of their consituent
parts.
-
The Internet Protocol does not allow prediction of the World Wide Web.
-
HTML doesn't necessarily imply Amazon.com.
-
The mechanisms of a listserv or news group do not imply the social definition
of spam.
-
Web spiders do not explain Yahoo's ad revenues.
-
Web browsers don't necessarily give rise to P3P.
-
Disk drives don't explain the terms and conditions under which system operators
engage in banishment.
-
Firewalls don't predict social bonding on intranets.
Keep your eye out for emergent, semi-orderly phenomena as you consider
the mechanisms evolving in response to "public policy" problems on the
net.
|Top -- The Self-Ordering Net|Send suggestions
to David R. Johnson