The Illusion Of The Decentralized
We wolf down the absurd: a decentralised network stretched between a handful of power centres.
Men have an innate need to band together, to gather around. We used to gather around campfires, without which we could not survive. Today, we orbit around social-media firms — an expression that might not be entirely correct, but which I often use as it shows the right state of affairs: we can’t talk of a “social network” just as we can’t talk of a dialogue when people are talking over each other.
This handful of firms have great, undisputed power. Even more, it’s us, the consumers, who give power to these firms that await us with arms wide open. It would be more correct to say: we represent their power. We are drawn to the flame, moth-like, driven by the fear of missing out and assurance that consumption equals the right to be free. Hooked on and instructed to be where everyone is, we are forced to consume everything. A vicious circle.
And we’re not satisfied with what we’ve allowed to be forced to consume. As the Internet is but the amplifier of who we are. All who we are, we are even more in our digital imprints on the web. Some parts that are not who we are, we start to digitally inhabit. That is how cacophony of content is made: out of tune, misaligned, and often insipid bites we swallow.
The response from social-media firms is grandiose. “We understand the concern over tech platforms becoming strongholds of power, but I believe that decentralized power they essentially place in the hands of users matters more”, Mark Sugar-Mountain recently said in a lecture at a US uni. “Still, I believe”, he continued sugarcoating, “we need to further pledge ourselves to freedom of expression.”
Companies tell us nicely that it’s not the problem with the offer, but with the demand. The demand is liberated from any clamps and grips, because the freedom of expression matters, so the demand itself will determine the popularity of content — no matter what the content is. Platforms are but the neutral information carriers, the infrastructure, the log for the campfire. People choose what they publish and whom they follow, right?
Criticizing this liberal attitude is not popular. It’s unacceptable to claim that we need to be under the patronage that protects us from ourselves. Criticizing platforms/firms is made equal to criticizing free will, society and democracy. The content that springs from it is the matter of consequences, not causes. Users are the ones to blame, not firms. Sounds familiar?
Where everything is allowed to bloom, the grain cannot be differentiated from the chaff.
Respite, With An Example
I recently stumbled upon a post that dealt with a question from the realm of physics, the author themselves was a physicist. Since the topic was close to us, laymen, the post got over 880 replies.
Here, I used a simple system, whereby I rate each reply (view or information) against two questions: the tone of the message (a smiley face or a sad face) and the value of the message for the topic itself. When there is sufficient content, the tone is not difficult to determine; you should also identify negative tones hidden behind polite words. It is the rating of information that should be practised. I use 4 symbols: +, -, ?, and x. Each clearly irrelevant reply is assigned an “x”. Each reply that states a personal view, without an adequate competent explanation, a theory not tested, a Wiki quote, or when it diverts from the topic is assigned “-”. Replies that are assigned a question mark are the ones that might not give credible information, but are at least self-aware of their quality while bringing something fresh to the table. Clearly, the entire system is subjective.
Annotating 880 replies is a laborious and long feat; I did it sloppily to save time, so the results are just an illustration and should not be taken for granted. Anyway, there were plenty of sad faces in replies to the physics post, more than a half. Irrelevant content (x and -) accounted for an even larger share—nearly 80%. Yes, we can literally discard four-fifths of comments and won’t lose on the quality and value of discussion. And finally, we can see the expected correlation between sad faces and irrelevant replies, as well as between smiley faces and useful responses. In other words, those who have something meaningful to say, do so in a polite manner.
Refraction
Where everything is allowed to bloom, the grain cannot be differentiated from the chaff. The problem lies not in the existence of the chaff, but in the fact that we can’t tell the two apart.
Criticizing platforms and firms isn’t criticizing the freedom of expression. The freedom of speech is certainly important, but the freedom to (dis)obey is equally important. We need to fight for the freedom to choose what we post, but also the freedom to decide what to consume. And given that almighty firms offer tech solutions only for the former, my criticism goes not to what these companies are, but what they aren’t: a solution that allows us to tell the difference. And we can grasp why things are this way: the former brings us together, the latter profiles us. Simply put, ROI is higher on mass-production than on quality.
Call To Reaction
I have an idea… an online cohort of software engineers, a gathering for the sake of quality, not quantity. A place where a person speaks on their behalf, based on their knowledge and conviction, not a place where tech firms advertise and whip it out to see who’s b… better at digitalisation. Where no trivial posts on what it’s like to work from home, for god’s sakes, or mere sharing content without sharing why we’re sharing it.
Think StackOverflow + Medium + LinkedIn.
Ready to continue and post, I wait for your ping, in order for a pong to happen. It’s absurd, I need a number of responses to justify not the idea, but the time. Or do I?