This week saw the publication of two very thoughtful articles on the impact that networks are having on society, and what that means for the future of governance.  The first was Catherine Bracy and Jim Pugh’s What’s Progressive About ‘Peer Progressives’? and the second was Om Malik’s Uber, Data Darwinism and the future of work.

Both get at essentially the same question: as more of our daily activities happen in a connected and networked fashion, what does that mean for how we govern ourselves?   

Om asks if we’re ready for the hyper-accountable “data darwinism” that comes from living in a quantified society.  Take, for instance, the Uber driver with a consistent record of poor customer satisfaction, who is unceremoniously dropped from the platform (and possibly,from the broader on-demand labor pool).  Perhaps fair, but with a degree of abruptness that we’re not yet accustomed to.

Bracy and Pugh build squarely on Steven Johnson’s idea of Peer Progressivism and ask what government can do to help peer networks grow and thrive while still ensuring that basic rights are not passed over by market activity.  Similar question as Om raises, but more focused on ensuring equal access and opportunity.

Both are getting at the same big idea: that web platforms are a lot like governments (as my colleague Brad wrote about several years ago).  And in many ways, these platforms are ahead of the game (relative to some of our public institutions) in figuring out “Governance 2.0”.

Every one of these peer-driven, connected systems (from eBay, to Airbnb, to Uber and Lyft, etc.) has built — out of necessity for the creation of a functioning marketplace — internal trust, safety and dispute resolution systems.  These systems, which are usually some form of reciprocal rating, make it possible for people to trust one another and do business together, and in general, these systems are super effective at achieving that goal. Almost by definition, they serve the interests of users of the platform (both on the producer and consumer side of a marketplace).  And by and large, they are  adaptive rather than prescriptive — meaning that by default I “have a shot” at proving myself in the marketplace, and then my reputation evolves as I do stuff.

But as Bracy and Pugh point out, this is not same thing as a publicly-run government.  Each of these networks is a purpose-built community (either for-profit like the ones above, or nonprofit like Wikipedia or Mozilla), whose interest is in maximizing the productive or economic activity within the platform, not necessarily advancing or protecting other public interests.  And, by and large, these systems are internally-focused and don’t take into account externalities (e.g., noise and foot traffic that neighbors of an Airbnb apartment might not like).  And as Om points out, there is a lot of responsibility, and there are new forms of risk, in this hyper-accountable reputation-driven environment.

This raises all kinds of interesting questions for governments.  How can they take advantage of the creative and economic opportunity that these networks present?  How might they adapt these “2.0” models of governance?  How can they create adequate space for new new models of doing business to emerge and prove themselves?  

And most importantly, how can they ensure that the public’s interests are being met in this new environment (hint: it’s going to be different than how it’s been done in the past)?

6hmm, large, peer progressive, peer networks,

Yesterday I spent the day at Princeton with Steve Schultze and the rest of the team at the Center for Information Technology Policy.  

The topic of my talk was “Peer Progress and Regulation 2.0” — something I’ve been thinking and talking about over the past several months, but haven’t yet written a ton about.  That will change soon.

In a nutshell: we are seeing an explosion of “peer networks” — networks of people, powered by the web, collaborating and consuming in new ways (think: Etsy, Airbnb, Skillshare, Kickstarter, etc.)  As these network-oriented communities touch more and more real-world sectors (housing, transportation, health, education) they are running into regulatory trouble, as many of them don’t fit into traditional categories (is Airbnb a Hotel? a phone book?  a real estate broker?  Is Skillshare a university?), often operate in legal gray areas, and often disrupt incumbents.

I’ve been working with many of these companies, and with folks in academia and in the public sector, to get a better understanding of what this means (for our economies, our neighborhoods, etc) and how we might approach it.  There is tremendous opportunity here — as networks tend to produce solutions that are lower in cost and more scalable than traditional approaches — but there are also new kinds of risk, as the barriers to production and consumption decrease.  All of this presents really interesting public policy questions.

Perhaps the most interesting idea that came out of the discussion is the notion scale.  When peer networks are just starting out — often in new sectors — they have relatively little overall impact on the economy or society.  But as they grow, their impact increases exponentially.  The idea of some sort of safe harbor for smaller, earlier networks, that would allow them the freedom to innovate and to explore new opportunities, is an interesting one.

Here are my slides from the talk, and here is the video: (unfortunately there were some audio problems right in the beginning, but the rest is fine)

6hmm, large, peer progressive,

This morning I am heading down to the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy to talk about Peer Progress and Regulation 2.0.  The pitch goes like this:

“Peer Networks” are bringing new organizational and economic dynamics to every sector — unlocking tremendous opportunity and potential. At the same time, they threaten incumbents in the private and public sectors, and present new challenges for regulators working to protect the public interest. Please join us to discuss the dynamics of peer networks, the opportunities they present to our economies and societies, and the political and policy challenges facing their advancement.

So it’s fitting that my morning reading kicked off with this critique of the Peer Progressive worldview (as embodied in Steven Johnson’s recent book, Future Perfect) by Evgeny Morozov.  If you’ve read Future Perfect, or other books about how peer networks & open collaboration are changing our society & economy by folks such as Benkler, ZIttrain, Weinberger, Shirky, etc., go read the article as well as Steven’s rebuttal now.

The gist of Morozov’s argument is that Future Perfect is Internet-Centrism / Cyber-utopianism in a box - conveniently omitting many tough questions and cherry-picking historical examples to fit a pre-determined viewpoint.  Johnson’s response is that Morozov’s critique misses many of the nuances of his argument.

I don’t have time to write a proper response right now - but my starting point for thinking about this is pretty obvious.  I’m describe myself as a “student of cities and the internet”, this blog is named after one of the ideas in Steven’s previous book, I’ve written about Steven and his ideas many times before, he and I are working on a project together right now, and my interest in all of this stems from reading Jane Jacobs in college.  So I am hardly an impartial observer.

That said, I welcome Morozov’s critique, and find it tremendously useful in shaping and sharpening my thinking.

6hmm, large, steven johnson, evgeny morozov, peer progressive,