"Silence is a Commons"
 

.
In another thread, on brain-user interface, fazstp brought up a point that made me think of something written some years ago. Since my point seemed tangential to that thread, I’m putting this in a separate one.

Isn’t this a key challenge of the information age?
We’re so overwhelmed with messages that we have no chance to relate meaningfully to even a fraction of it.

I would highly recommend this essay, “Silence Is a Commons”, written by the brilliant thinker Ivan Illich 25 years ago.

I venture that the invasion of our commons by noise is one of the greatest threats to meaningful communications, meaningful public debate, and thus to our culture and democracies.

-- ArcticStones

.

.
On a tangent; keep in mind that this far-reaching and prophetic proposal was written in 1971:

“The operation of a peer-matching network would be simple. The user would identify himself by name and address and describe the activity for which he sought a peer. A computer would send him back the names and addresses of all those who had inserted the same description. It is amazing that such a simple utility has never been used on a broad scale for publicly valued activity.”

—Ivan Illich

Oh, my. Where to start?

No question technology has presented my limited intellect with what, at times, seems to be an overwhelming barrage of information, complications, and technicalities to the point I cannot think.

Some times I think maybe I'm beginning to get old. Rapidly becoming a curmudgeon. This is just not the world I grew up in, and the new world is not as comfortable as the old one. It is different in so many ways, most of which has been brought on by the info age and all the associated new information one must master. Communication is greatly strained... just try calling any large organization and deal with a multiple choice, voice activated, telephone tree that does not have the option you need and there's no way to get to speak with a real, live person. Should one be fortunate enough to speak to a real person, the caller is angry and frustrated before the conversation begins. The politeness, gentleness and genuine attempt to be social that were the norm in my youth are no more. We no longer communicate the same way or with the same tone. And, that is a shame.

On a different level, society moving to covert the common into a public and/or private resource is a tremendous challenge for our future. We are quickly losing our privacy and even our humanity. Life is now frustrating in so many ways, I really wonder at times whether or not the convenience and efficiency of the info age are worth the cost.

I think I'll buy some minnows and go fishing. And, I'll probably take the cell phone along ... but I don't know why as it can only add interruptions and frustration to the peace and quiet I seek watching a bobber float in the still water.

Right on AEH. I don't know how old you are, but at 70, I take the cell phone along, but I turn it off -- it's only with me so I can holler for help if I need it. I take it when I'm out for a spin in my speedboat too, but same deal; it's off in a ziplocked plastic bag -- there for emergencies.

I'm of an age when enjoying a meal with your loved ones (a practice so often neglected by my own kids where everyone seems to eat on a catch as catch can basis between events), I won't answer the house phone or my cell phone unless I'm actually expecting the call by prearrangement. I turn the cell phone off when I enter a restaurant -- my wife is more important to me than any caller's message will be.

I'm reminded of an old joke: A young couple were increasingly concerned that their aging grandfather lived alone on his farm and didn't have a phone. After a lot of hounding that it would be there if he needed it, entirely for his convenience, he installed one. Some time later, when the young couple were visiting Grampa, the phone rang in the kitchen, but Gramps ignored it. Squirming with the urgency the young have for answering their phones, the young folks asked "Aren't you going to answer the phone Grampa? His response: "I thought it was for my convenience".

The moral of the story: modern communication technologies only invade your life if you let them. Years ago, I was traveling with the President of the University where I was a Dean, and our flight home was delayed. He asked me if I had a cell phone so he could tell his wife not to come to the airport to meet him. I didn't. He found a pay phone and called, but when he returned, he asked me why I didn't carry one. For the same reason you don't, I said; I want to control access to me. While you were talking to Rachel, I called my Admin Assistant to check in, and called the Dean of Science to return his call.

Turning off the cell phone is not an option... aging parents, medically fragile family member and such. So, I'm thankful that technology gave me the option of being out without being out of touch. I'm 64... and I'll qualify for full Social Security in another three years. But Uncle Sam's notion of when I should retire didn't jive with my own. I've been retired for four years.... well, from paid work anyway.

I am amazed daily at how technology has changed the world and how we interact with it. Today we accept without comment so many things that we would never have accepted just a few years ago.

One example.... in the 60's you could pull into any gas station and an attendant would fill your tank, check your oil and fluid levels, check tire pressures and wash your windshield. All without asking; that was just the expected service. A good station would also vacuum the car. Gas was 35 cents a gallon. Today, they'll let you buy their gas, but only if you pay in advance or get a credit card approval from their machine. Gas is $3.25 and it's 50 cents (correct change only) more to check your own tire pressure..... that's all pretty much machine interacting with machine with only you as the go between. This is better?

I shutter to think about what people will be dealing with in another 50 years.

Bread lines, I'm afraid. :( I like technology, but I really don't see it benefiting people very often.

Ok, so maybe it's a bit off topic, but this reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of writing, by Ray Bradbury, there will come soft rains..
There is also a poem by Sarah Teasdale with the same title, which I also enjoy. I think it's what inspired Bradbury to write that story..
Kinda amazing and scary what technology can do for us.. and it will be able to do in the future..
Sorry for the distraction:o..

Some reflections on the Internet as a commons
 

.
Thanks for sharing, Felix!
The Sarah Teasdale poem reminds me of some of the works of Robinson Jeffers. He wrote out of the landscape in which I spent my first California years. Some refer to him as a misanthropic poet, but I think that is an oversimplification. I’ll go back and re-read my Bradbury; thanks for the link. :)


I think it can be strongly argued that the Internet is an effective Commons -- at least until the telecoms, their allies and henchmen manage to do away with Internet neutrality.

The new collegiality
There is an amazing amount of worthwhile sharing going on in many fields. In most sciences, publication in respectable ezines etc have enabled far more comprehensive sharing, and more timely joint efforts to expand knowledge, and grapple with defined challenges. Collegiality has taken on a new and truly global meaning.

The same goes for fields of endeavour that, although no less specialised, are truly accessible to everyone: hiking, rafting, home beer brewing and wine making, gardening, origami and paper airplane folding, meditation, ice sculpture and sandcastle building, music composition, amateur creative writing...

Communities of generosity
Communities are formed with meaningful sharing as a core value. Many such forums are characterised by an amazing degree of generosity. (In my opinion MacOSXHints is a paragon of that!)

The World Wide Web is sometimes describes as "a billion doors that lead to empty rooms". Sure, there is a lot of garbage; but nothing compels us to wallow in it. The Internet has also been called "perhaps the finest example of anarchy in practice". I would tend to argue that this latter understanding is more spot on.

And yet, like any other Commons, there are unwritten rules, unspoken (or spoken) codes of behaviour, clear understandings of what you can and cannot do within certain contexts.

The quality of advertising
Similarly there is much context-based advertising that is non-intrusive and acceptable to most of us. And there is plenty of noise -- idiots (both corporate and individual) who like clumsy bullies try to be heard by screaming, flashing, over-writing the articles or distracting us from the content that we’re truly interested in.

I work as a copywriter and much of my work is in advertising – some it web based. And so this is a topic to which I would like to return. Professionally I have an ongoing effort to convince my clients of the futility of noise, the power of generosity, and the effectiveness of silence.

Which of course are just different ways of saying to the client: Respect the commons!

(Personally I believe that these same principles of communication can be applied to printed matter, posters and billboards, radio and TV.)

Threats to the Internet as a commons
As long as it lasts, I think the Internet is a wonderful commons!
And I think it is important that we understand it as such.

It is imperative that ongoing efforts to transform the Internet into a mere resource be effectively countered so that they do not prevail. The thought of a tiered Internet gives me cause for worry. The thought of Phorm, as I understand it, makes me shudder -- although I suppose it is a natural corporate extension of the developments we’ve seen, and the surveillance of web-based activity to which government agencies are already trying to enlist (compel) our ISPs.

The risk of Rupert Murdoch or the likes purchasing a controlling share of Google really gives me cause for anxiety.

But for now it is a Commons for which I am immensely grateful every day! :)


Respectfully,
ArcticStones

.

I'm not sure I buy the Internet as "commons" analogy.

To me, the internet seems more like an old-time marketplace, each participant with his own stall, so to speak. The transactions are just exchanges of information between individual "buyers" and "sellers". The exchanged information can be what you describe: collegial, informative, socializing, assisting, etc., in addition to the "real" commercial transactions which are a newer version of the brick and mortar stores.

When I go to someone else's stall, I check out what information the other party is offering, and, if I find that I'm interested in his product, my "payment" is my time (i.e., my exposure to his ads), and/or perhaps, in the case of sites like this, a transfer of my information to him. I see no "commons" involved; it's simply a one on one transaction, repeated zillions of times with zillions of participants.

I can choose to participate where and when I want, I choose which interactions I initiate and terminate, I can come and go anytime I want, other participants who abuse those who enter their stall are quite easily avoided (most of the time) and thus do not detract from the "marketplace" in general. Again, not a "commons" of the traditional type.

The closest thing to a "commons" I can see in the internet is the access to this marketplace and the paths to the individual stalls. Yet even these exist only because companies built them with the intent to make a profit - even though the airwaves are "public property", this access is difficult for me to associate with the traditional concept of "commons" as it required the investment to come into existence.

You are, however, absolutely correct that various actions by the controllers of these paths can severely degrade or destroy this marketplace, and that is why I believe some semblance of regulation on these providers/controllers of access is necessary.

EDIT: Of course, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" will always be a problem

The old-time marketplace WAS a commons
 

Interesting objections and many valid points, Pete.

Let us remember, however, that the "old-time marketplace" was in fact the village or town square -- a commons par excellence! Just like the Internet is today.

Overlapping metaphors
So there is, in essence, no conflict between our two metaphors. To a large degree they overlap. Companies setting up websites having a clear intent to make a profit, just like the craftsmen and re-sellers that set up stands in the town square.

There has always been a clear understanding about respecting the shared paths of that commons, about not blocking the view or access to another’s stand, about where you could chuck your garbage and where to urinate, clean-up after closing hours, etc. You would also get problems if you hired a crier with offensive behaviour. And so it is with many modern markets in public spaces as well.

Our own fish market
The Fish Market in Bergen, Norway, is trying to regain the public trust, after failing to enforce minimum standards. Interestingly, ideal foundations and professional old-time capitalists are signalling a generous willingness to chip in to improve the infrastucture of that commons.

There is a shared understanding, however, that time-proven codes of conduct must be regenerated. What is happening is fascinating and I could tell you a lot more about that...

The great equaliser
Furthermore the Internet has proven to be a great equalizer (just as the town square can be), enabling small enterprises to offer their products in full competition with huge conglomerates.

We agree that a huge problem arises the moment parties with vested interests attempt to dictate (or charge extra money for) the use of paths between the stands, giving priority to some and hindering others.

-- ArcticStones

.

I think that Pete & Stones have hit the nail on the head and that their differences amount to different viewpoints of the same thing. Well done, both; a pleasure to read and think about.

-----

@AEH; we've brought this on ourselves, IMHO, by always pursuing the cheapest -- ignoring value and quality. We've become a throw-away society where practically everything we buy is unrepairable crap. My wife still patronizes the one service station near us that pumps gas for their customers and cleans back and front windows to boot, paying 2¢/liter (7.6¢/gallon) for the service. It's a popular, money-making indie station poised in the midst of a neighborhood of retirees who've lived there for 40 years.

----

@Felix; Great reminder of a great story. The same theme was in Martian Chronicles and Fahrenheit 451, stories I read when I was in High School in the early 1950's.

Internet / "Commons" - 2nd Try
 

ArcticStones & NovaScotian:

As you say, it may be just two variations of the same viewpoint, but let me try again to make clear why I still have a problem with the "Internet as Commons" analogy.

My first exposure to the term "commons" was Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" and the term appears to require two necessary conditions: first, a public ownership or use, and secondly, the characteristic that any individual user of the "commons" has the capacity to degrade or destroy it for everyone else. Absent either one of these, the term doesn't really apply. (That's my take on the meaning. If I missed the point and my take is incorrect, obviously my objections may not apply, either.)

Continuing my marketplace analogy, no individual stall owner has the capability to degrade the rest of the marketplace as a whole, no matter how egregious his behavior. The analogies of overgrazing, blocking views/access, chucking garbage, urinating in public, offensive criers, etc., just don't apply - bad behavior is entirely contained within the stall in which it takes place, and has no effect on either adjacent stalls or their customers. Customers have complete freedom to avoid the offensive stalls, with essentially no degradation of their capability to frequent any other stalls. I can see no analogy to a "tragedy" described by Hardin (other than the access/bandwidth issue I mentioned in the earlier post). Thus, the second necessary condition for a "commons" does not exist in my view.

(Of course, hackers who attack others via various techniques do exist but they fall outside both general models/analogies, and could be the subject of a different thread.)

What about spammers, Pete? Aren't they offensive criers; polluters in a way? And, BTW, I live in a town that has a commons, so understand what you mean by the term, and by the notion that any individual user of the commons has the capacity to degrade or destroy it for others. (I might also mention that Nova Scotia is infamous for its well-oiled CAVE -- citizens against virtually everything, so nothing will change).

You're correct that spammers can be considered to be offensive criers (polluters). However, I don't consider them to be part of the internet.

I think we're into individual perception/definition differences here. While others may well disagree, in my perception/definition, email and "internet" are entirely different creatures: email is what I do with a mail program, internet is what I do with a browser. (I recognize that they both utilize the same technology, but they are separable entities, in my view.)

Email is entirely equivalent to the postal service, except that it's faster, cheaper, more flexible, and done electronically (and thus can't deliver physical packages). Therefore, to me, spam is directly equivalent to "junk mail". No matter what junk I get in my inbox (in spite of trying to be smart with filters:(), that appears to have zero impact on what I consider my internet experience.

Although I have heard of the term "internet spam", I'm not entirely sure what it is meant by that, unless people whose definitions are different from mine consider email as part of the internet.

In any event, to my way of thinking, email fails the "commons" test because it is does not meet the public ownership or use criterion of my previous post. It is an inherently private mechanism upon which spammers can intrude.


As an interesting tangent to this discussion, let me point out that in at least one respect, the postal system provides a significant advantage over email in terms of "spam filtering", which, by extension, could also be provided by a "tiered access" approach in the electronic domain. My snail-mail filtering is very simple and draconian: everything that is not first-class mail or packages/magazines/newspapers that I have ordered is immediately consigned to the trash, unopened and unread. I may lose out on some "fantastic offers" and such, but my time is my most valuable resource and I choose not to waste it sorting through the junk. This discriminator is not available for email, but would be for a "tiered access" model. However, I think the disadvantages of such tiered access overwhelm this one possible advantage, so I remain a strong opponent.

That would be the crap posts that I and the other mods here filter by hand daily so you people don't have to deal with it.

And believe us, there’s a lot of it...

LOL !!!

Thank you, gentlemen, for your services in defending the rest of us from being overwhelmed by all the miscreants out there!!!

OK, now that I have an example of what "internet spam" is, in reference to my previous posts, this spam falls into what one could call the environment created by each stall owner. A market stall such as this one, tries to create a positive environment which tends to result in people coming back for additional interactions. A stall owner who does little to maintain a positive environment, discourages my presence, and, when some threshold level of "unacceptableness" is reached, I will cease my interactions with that stall. Nevertheless, my ability to interact with the other zillions of stall owners remains completely unimpaired: the "bad" stall owners have not compromised the marketplace as a whole.

Ahh Pete; a Jewish friend of mine has a term for that approach: that argument, he would say, is a "pilpul": casuistic hairsplitting in the vernacular definition.

casuist - a person who uses clever but unsound reasoning; a sophist

sophist - a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments


Hmmm. Given my admittedly limited understanding of the workings of the internet, the distinctions I articulated make sense to me, both at a theoretical and a practical level.

I'd be interested in learning where you think the unsoundness or fallacy lies.

Re: The definition of Commons
 

.
No fallacy per se... But you keep referring to a second condition that is actually not part of the definitions of Commons.

Commons -- [treated as sing. ] land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. • a public park of a town or city. (Oxford American Dictionary)

One of Garrett Hardin’s examples is that of our national parks. Under normal circumstances it is very difficult, indeed, for a single individual "to degrade or destroy it". Unless you’re talking about a willful act of sabotage, such as introducing an extreme toxin into the waterways of the national park. (Which I suppose would be tantamount to spreading a web-based virus on an oft-visited Internet page.)

So in essence one of Mr Hardin’s own key examples fails to satisfy the additional second condition! :cool: In fact I cannot find your definition, nor the words "destroy" nor "degrade", in his essay.

For the purposes of this discussion, I therefore propose that we stick to the commonly accepted definition of Commons. Otherwise methinks we quickly derail the discussion.

Respectfully,
ArcticStones

.

You're correct that the dictionary definition does not include that requirement.

Yet, the essay to which you linked specifically includes overgrazing, overfishing, and several other examples which leads to degradation/destruction (my words, not his) of the common resource. It's my opinion that the the potential for harm to the common resource by individual (i.e,. non-collective) actions is the sine qua non to the whole point of the essay - without that characteristic, the essay loses all meaning. As I indicated before, it is the essay, not the dictionary, from which I drew the interpretation.

Long story short, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of my interpretation.:)

You are also correct that a discussion about a topic where the participants are not using the same reference point(s) can quickly get derailed and generate more noise than illumination. I will defer without further challenge to the definitions/reference points that you have identified in this thread.

On that we agree! And I believe that one of Ivan Illich’s points is that noise increasingly fills the silence -- which is a Commons -- that is essential for human communications.

And so I am fully agreeing that the question of degradation is a key one to examine, such as we’re doing, albeit not a defining criterion of the concept of Commons. :)

That said, I believe Hardin to be overly pessimistic -- even more so than Illich.

.

Hey, Pete;

Your definition of Casuistry is too harsh. See Casuistry for the sense in which I meant it -- the act of splitting hairs on the details of a definition was what I meant; in the "I did not have sex with that woman" sense, true if "sex" is defined as "intercourse" but not otherwise, and my target was the point that ArcticStones just made about the inability to trash it excluding the internet from being a commons.