[FRIAM] on government

[glen]

That's helpful. But there are compositions that aren't immediately obvious. Is Durov/Zuckerberg the government? Or the governed? Both? Dave's invocation of Chevron is appropriate, here. In one perspective, leaving Durov/Zuck to make their own decisions based on their scoped power/expertise is problematic. In another perspective, there's a plurality of ... commonses (?) ... "platforms" like Truth Social or X, which should be free to fail based on alternative governing/governments. And from yet another perspective, the Great Man fallacy applies and Durov/Zuck don't really have any power/expertise at all, it's the bushy heterarchy of employees and participants that, through their collective behavior, produce the higher order phenomena exhibited in the "commons" they host.

The individualist bias of self-governance is myopic to that bushy heterarchy.

On 8/27/24 11:27, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> 
>     What does it mean to "govern"?
> 
> 
> I define governance as enabling constraints on the social systems to achieve least effort coordination. Government has a role as do Corporations.
> 
> Elinor Ostrom provides alternative bottom up rules for governance and is a guiding ethos of our "digital acequia" work.
> https://www.shareable.net/how-to-design-the-commons-or-elinor-ostrom-explained/ <https://www.shareable.net/how-to-design-the-commons-or-elinor-ostrom-explained/>
> 
> And of course, Marx dissolution of the state as a natural outcome of a classless society where communal ownership would render centralized governance unnecessary has connections to Ostrom's work on collective management of common resources which suggests that decentralized, self-organized communities can effectively govern shared resources without the need for a traditional centralized state apparatus. While dissolution of Nation States is not on the near term horizon, dissolution of Big Tech "governing" our data is a more reasonable near term target.
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ