Fu Response: Twittering for a Utopian Society

On January 5, 2009 the Twitter accounts of 33 high profile users were hacked and their sites defaced with sexually explicit and drug related posts. The attackers utilized a method known as a “dictionary attack” to guess the administrator’s password and gain access to the accounts. Continuing with Ratcliffe’s biological analogy, this type of vulnerability would be akin to a cancer or a virus plaguing the system. However, a cellular network differs from a social network in that cells do not have emotions and are not affected by fear.

Take for instance the N1H1 “pandemic” that created mass hysteria throughout the world. People donned masks and became reclusive for fear of contracting the illness. Schools and other public places were shut down to avoid spreading the virus. Although Twitter was used for informational purposes during this period of time, it also served to further spread the panic. If cellular behavior mimicked this, anytime there was a threat to the system the cellular network would shut down, organs would cease functioning, thus resulting in a catastrophic failure of the organism. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not questioning Twitter’s ability to spread information. Its flexibility is organic, its speed is staggering and its accessibility is global. In an ideal world these strengths would be perfect for the development of a global government were the people truly make the decisions. You know what’s next… We don’t live in an ideal world.

Imagine a place where centralized governments were made obsolete by a form of communication such as Twitter. The masses would truly have the power to make decisions beyond who to vote for during a presidential race. Every single person’s views could be made public and addressed, so long as they had access to the internet. Now think about this in real world terms. For instance, consider a meeting where there are 30 participants, but only 10 stakeholders, now take that to the Nth power. The decision making process would grind to a standstill. It would be a wonderful solution to a difficult problem in a world where everyone was the same and nothing would be taken personally. Unfortunately, unlike biological cells, humans in an individualistic society care about their own opinions and often take opposition personally.

Would this be an ideal solution for an ideal world? In my opinion, absolutely. The organic nature of this form of communication would be exactly what we need for an adaptable government where everyone could truly be represented. Like an organism it would be the perfect machine where information is passed seamlessly throughout the network. The issue is the human factor. Twitter is a different method for us to communicate, but the communicator and communications are the same. The problems we face today will be no different tomorrow, no matter the mechanism we use. The communicators will continue to convey false and, occasionally, falsified information as evident in the January 5 example. The false communication will continue to spread like wildfire, acting as a catalyst for widespread panic as evident in the N1H1 “pandemic.”

Tajchman Response: Twittering for a Utopian Society

Trey draws an interesting parallel between cell communication and Twitter. In many ways, Twitter does seem to mimic cell behavior in that it allows individuals to communicate with informational neighbors. Messages can propagate and spread quickly in Twitter, much as important cell communications might.

There are also, however, some distinct differences. For one, cells operate collectively to form organs, which have very specific motives. Twitter communities, on the other hand, do not form specialized communities in the way cells do. Instead, they are made up of diverse members, and if you follow “ties” within twitter from user to user to user, you’ll quickly find that personal interests vary greatly.

This diversity is both an aid and a hindrance to decision-making. The cells in a liver share a common set of goals like detoxification and biochemical production. While you could pick out a group of connected Twitter users who share common goals, once you start looking at their neighbors, and those neighbors’ neighbors, the diversity of interests quickly expands, to likely include opposing goals.

The concept of ad hoc decision-making communities is nothing new to society. Under anarchism, decision-making communities still form, and attempt to maximize their own power. The generally accepted downside of anarchy is that it leads to disorder and a breakdown of social contracts. Twitter is similarly headless; and suffers the same disorderly behavior in decision-making. It is an excellent tool for spreading information, but like other disorganized systems, is inefficient at making decisions.

As a big believer in “net roots”, I think an online community like Twitter could be enhanced a great deal toward societal decision-making (which is one of the key roles of government). Other sites like Facebook and even Digg have formats much more conducive to augmenting government, but more on that topic another time.

Twittering for a Utopian Society

Twitter is the latest phenomenon for sharing information online with a small community. The character restricted format and asynchronous nature act as a catalyst for the process of sharing information. Trey Ratcliffe had an interesting post about how Twitter mimics certain biological systems, such as cell communication. Is he correct about its ability to spread information? Or are there significant safeguards missing that would prevent the spreading of bad information (like a cancer?). He goes on to suggest that this form of communication may be a precursor to a world without governments, where decisions are made by “the crowd”. Where does this form of decision making fall short, if at all? Discuss.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2009/04/30/twitter-and-human-evolution/