We live in the three networks of institutions, social media, and relationships. How can our participation contribute to building relationships of impact that matter in each network?
There is a very interesting open source project going on in the area of social media and the web, called Solid, and guided by the inventor of the original web, Tim Berners-Lee and his W3C organization.
The basic idea is an inversion of control. Instead of apps owning data, a person or organization owns data and apps are allowed to access it based on permissions given by the person or organization. So instead of 100 apps duplicating your personal information on their servers and possibly getting it wrong, you keep your personal information on your server or a server you designate and the 100 apps have to use it there. This puts the burden on apps to use this data based on one's permissions and expectations and the expectations of other apps about how data will be structured. This is an entirely new burden that apps are not used to dealing with, the control of the data being in the hands of the data owner, that being the individual or organization. Its an ongoing project and many of the details of this inversion of control have yet to be worked out.
I am fascinated by this project, although I have reservations about it.
My reservations revolve around the role of organizations as stewards of data. I have no problem with individuals controlling their own data, their personal profiles, their likes and dislikes, their history and opinions, their accomplishments, their connections.
But when it comes to organizations doing this, being the stewards of information that many people and apps will have to rely on, and being able to set permissions to that data based on broad groups of people, then I have a problem. It seems to me that for organizations, Solid is tailor made to be used to implement a social credit system.
I worry about this even more when I consider the nature of open source software projects and standards bodies. They are by their nature not democracies. Some would even go so far as to call them cults. After all, what is a "do-ocracy"? The more of your time and energy you donate, the more you are allowed to know about the goals and presumably the more control you have. Just like a cult. When employees from large corporations are involved, they completely skew the power balance of these "public-private partnerships". Some would go as far as to call it fascist. I have not come across anyone looking into these considerations.
What you describe will always be an issue within the digital space. However, it is important for us as people to decide what we want from our experience in that space. I know that what I am about say borders on the ludicrous. What if those things that our betters deem the top of the hierarchy of high social credit, we has people decide that we will just not participate. Are we willing to sacrifice to gain some measure of freedom. It isn't something that we can accomplish over night. But it is something that we can work towards in the future. This is why I believe the value of direct relationships with people hold the promise of a society where respect, trust, and mutuality can be developed. It is much harder in the digital space or as I call it The Spectacle of the Real, to create those kinds of relationships. It is possible. But more daunting because of the intermediating effect of images.
There is a very interesting open source project going on in the area of social media and the web, called Solid, and guided by the inventor of the original web, Tim Berners-Lee and his W3C organization.
The basic idea is an inversion of control. Instead of apps owning data, a person or organization owns data and apps are allowed to access it based on permissions given by the person or organization. So instead of 100 apps duplicating your personal information on their servers and possibly getting it wrong, you keep your personal information on your server or a server you designate and the 100 apps have to use it there. This puts the burden on apps to use this data based on one's permissions and expectations and the expectations of other apps about how data will be structured. This is an entirely new burden that apps are not used to dealing with, the control of the data being in the hands of the data owner, that being the individual or organization. Its an ongoing project and many of the details of this inversion of control have yet to be worked out.
I am fascinated by this project, although I have reservations about it.
My reservations revolve around the role of organizations as stewards of data. I have no problem with individuals controlling their own data, their personal profiles, their likes and dislikes, their history and opinions, their accomplishments, their connections.
But when it comes to organizations doing this, being the stewards of information that many people and apps will have to rely on, and being able to set permissions to that data based on broad groups of people, then I have a problem. It seems to me that for organizations, Solid is tailor made to be used to implement a social credit system.
I worry about this even more when I consider the nature of open source software projects and standards bodies. They are by their nature not democracies. Some would even go so far as to call them cults. After all, what is a "do-ocracy"? The more of your time and energy you donate, the more you are allowed to know about the goals and presumably the more control you have. Just like a cult. When employees from large corporations are involved, they completely skew the power balance of these "public-private partnerships". Some would go as far as to call it fascist. I have not come across anyone looking into these considerations.
What you describe will always be an issue within the digital space. However, it is important for us as people to decide what we want from our experience in that space. I know that what I am about say borders on the ludicrous. What if those things that our betters deem the top of the hierarchy of high social credit, we has people decide that we will just not participate. Are we willing to sacrifice to gain some measure of freedom. It isn't something that we can accomplish over night. But it is something that we can work towards in the future. This is why I believe the value of direct relationships with people hold the promise of a society where respect, trust, and mutuality can be developed. It is much harder in the digital space or as I call it The Spectacle of the Real, to create those kinds of relationships. It is possible. But more daunting because of the intermediating effect of images.
Technology will advance, it is Technocracy that must be stopped.
Agree.