2021-02-25
------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a series of posts. You may
    wish to read the other ones first:

    1. "Dimensions of Government"
    2. "Symmetries of Responsibility"
    3. "Stacking of Thresholds"
    4. "Intermingling of Structures"

------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in the previous post about my little thought tool I defined
a way to rate different structures along three axis'. How would
digital social platforms be aligned within this system?

It may seem that we can just say they are large, anarchic and
socialistic, from the user's perspective. People are exchanging
information freely with anyone who will listen. This is actually
not the case.

The like button makes this an exchange. Also, there are subgroups
that have authority figures in them. If you post a message, you
have a feeling of responsibility. You are the authority and have
some role in keeping the discussion on topic. 

There's also another type of exchange that was not explicitly
written in, but is more of an emerging phenomenon, or even some
legacy leftover from the real social dynamics. There are special
memes that you have to repeat. This memetic amplification buys you
a place in a group. Also called virtue signalling, but I don't
like that term as good as memetic amplification, since the latter
seems more neutral and honest. I don't think it is about
showing that you have virtue, it is about showing you will chant
along, carry the same flag etc.

In gopherspace we of course have no like button. People do 
sometimes refer other's posts and sometimes send email saying
they appreciate the content. It's not clear to me if we should
consider these more like "nods" or are they exchanges. I suppose
the difference is sort of like the difference of money in a 
capitalist system versus money in a tribal system. I mean the 
physical object: money, coin. In a capitalist system, where money
flows as an abstract value and emergent notation system of power
relations, the object called "coin" is a different entity than in
a premodern tribe that has traded something and now has the one
coin in the village. If a person gives a coin to another, it
may have completely different meaning in these two contexts.
In the same way, I think that a compliment is not exchange when
it happens within gopherspace. When there is a specific
"compliment" button then it turns into something else.
So, I would say that gopherspace is socialist.

Is it anarchist, though? I suppose yes, it is anarchist when we
look at the collection of gopherholes as a unit. Anyone can say
whatever to the ether and anyone can listen or not listen. But
within my gopherhole I do have authority over what I do. The 
gopherhole is an avatar. It is my face here, and comparable to
my individual identity. It is still subject to SDF rules. I
assume that if I went mad and started spreading hate speech,
there would be some meeting or a vote in an anarchic socialistic
group within SDF that would pass along their decision to the
authoritarian capitalist system that it's boundaries have been
breached. Actually, I take that back. The implementing "spine"
of SDF is probably closer to authoritarian socialist system,
while the capitalist component is anarchic to a large degree,
since there is a give-what-you-can model, pledge,
and more traditional capitalist systems of exchanges.

This is not an exhaustive list of all possible components that
could be rated within the framework. Just putting it out there
as an example of how it actually gets a bit complicated quite
fast.

------------------------------------------------------------------