Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

(cc AG Politik, Election Methods, apologies for cross-posting)

Marc said:
> Sorry that I have put it this way. Unfortunately it is realy hard
> for me to express my thoughts in english language, because it's not
> my mother language and sometimes I feel like lost in translation...

I appreciate the effort you're putting into this lengthy thread.  You
must have other important things to work on, too.  But I assure you,
your English is excellent.  I understand your words.  I don't think
our misunderstanding is about words, but rather about larger concepts.
I hope we can clear it up shortly.  Please refer once more to the two
choices we, as technicians, have for obtaining users: * **

  (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus leveling
      the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from
      platform to platform.

      Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den Plattformen,
      so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht den Benutzern,
      reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.

  (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
      platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

      auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die
      eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer
      de-facto-Monopol.

> I am fine with (1) and therefore (a).

We are close to an understanding, then.  We both want (1) and (a).
Let's move on to discussing the solution.  This is where it gets
interesting for the Pirate Party.

> But thinking one step beyond, (b) and (c) are NOT conflicting with
> (a) from my point of view.
  . . .

> The SOLUTION should...
> a) ... enable free choice of the tooling for every users.
> b) ... cover all parts of the decision making process.
> c) ... make all discourse related data entered by any user available
>        to others.

You understand that user freedom (a) cannot be realized except by
eliminating (1) the network effects that underpin toolset lock-in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkeffekt

In obtaining users for our tools, therefore, how do you propose to
eliminate those network effects?  What is your solution for that?

> > (And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this,
> > even if they don't see it yet.  So altogether it's a very
> > interesting topic.)
> 
> Unfortunately from time to time it seems to me you are baked into
> old belief systems. The Pirate Party is just a vehicle to ride with
> for a while. It's necessary to speed up things. Not more. Not less.

Things will go very fast indeed if we keep on talking, so much so that
the party (as such) won't be able to handle the speed.  But nor will
the other parties, particularly the mainstream ones with members in
the Bundestag and state assemblies.  All will be shaken to pieces.

Do you know why?  My own thinking on this has improved in the last
month, thanks to discussions in the Election Methods list.

Last month, you said:
> What should I say? I have currently no crystal ball around to
> predict the future. The only thing I know about the future is that
> it never comes like I thought.

Just look at the present for what it is *technically* and you will see
the future.  The future hinges on something you already understand in
the present: position forming (Standpunktbildung), or primary voting
as I call it.  A political party is just a vehicle for position
forming.  Technically speaking, it is nothing but a "toolset platform"
for that purpose.  Here I don't mean just the Pirate Party and other
online parties, but *all* parties.  Look at them through a technicians
eyes.  All are toolset platforms.

> But mainly the process of changing democracy will take up to three
> generations of man. Today our society is not prepared to take over
> the power. So that's nothing I want to take care about right now...

It will happen fast.  Enabling people to move freely among toolset
platforms (by a solution we haven't yet discussed), will necessarily
enable them to move among political parties *without political
consequences*.  This will destroy the party system.  Immediately it
will begin to fall apart at the seams.  In technical terms, it will
become rationalized into purely technical functions on the one hand,
and purely political on the other.  The political parties as we know
them will have vanished.

Are you comfortable with this?  Should we make it happen?

Mike


    * We must be clear on this issue.  A platform cannot succeed
      without users.  There are two ways to obtain those users:

        (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus
            leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range
            freely from platform to platform.

            This is the right way.

        (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
            platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

            This is harmful and unnecessary, and therefore wrong.

      These are the only ways.  There are no grey areas in between.
      If our choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible
      engineer will cooperate with us.  Instead he'll point to the
      danger and warn us not to proceed.

      (1) or (2)?  What should we do?

   ** Or in Alexander Praetorius's translation:

      Wir müssen in dieser Frage klar.  Eine Plattform kann nicht ohne
      Erfolg Benutzer.  Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten, um die Benutzer zu
      erhalten:

        (1) Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den
            Plattformen, so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht
            den Benutzern, reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.

            Dies ist der richtige Weg.

        (2) auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die
            eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer
            de-facto-Monopol.

            Dies ist schädlich und unnötig und daher fehlerhaft.

      Dies sind die einzigen Möglichkeiten. Es gibt keine Grauzonen
      dazwischen.  wenn Unsere Wahl ist nicht (1), dann ist es (2),
      und kein verantwortlicher Ingenieur wird mit uns
      zusammenzuarbeiten.  Stattdessen wird er auf die Gefahr
      hinweisen und warnen uns nicht weiter zu verfolgen.

      (1) oder (2)?  Was sollen wir tun?


marc said:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Not sure how to put it ;o)
> 
> You wrote:
> > I return to answer your questions from last month.  Please be patient
> > with me, because there's a misunderstanding to clear up.
> >
> >> a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
> >> b) within the context of a discourse
> >> c) and without any loss of data.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense to you?
> >
> > No, not yet.  I understand (a), because I introduced it myself.  It's
> > the basic human right of free association.  What I don't understand is
> > how it's qualified by location (b) or technical considerations (c).
> > Human rights are universal, of course.  They apply everywhere.  So (a)
> > cannot possibly be qualified by (b), as implied here.
> >
> > Certain qualifications *are* possible in individual cases.  Dangerous
> > criminals are denied freedom, for example.  But no human right can be
> > qualified for the sake of a mere technical consideration.  So (a)
> > cannot possibly be qualified by (c), either.
> >
> > I'm sure you know all this.  You say so below.  But nevertheless you
> > imply the opposite with this union of (a, b, c).  This confuses me.
> 
> Sorry that I have put it this way. Unfortunately it is realy hard for me to 
> express my thoughts in english language, because it's not my mother 
> language 
> and sometimes I feel like lost in translation...
> 
> Anyway, I didn't want to express that (a) is qualified or restricted by (b) 
> and/or (c).
> 
> Far from it! Instead (b) and (c) are enhancing (a). Therefore (a), (b) and 
> (c) should be seen more as constraints to the SOLUTION but not to the users 
> and their freedom of choice!
> 
> This might reduces the event horizon of possible solutions at first. But 
> later on - that's the hope - it increases the benefit for the user.
> 
> We definitely should work towards a solution that respects ALL THREE (a - 
> c) 
> constraints, but we can do this iteratively. First of all let's ensure that 
> THE SOLUTION fulfills (a). We could name this first iteration "Alpha" and 
> it's outcome is neither a specific plattform nor implementation. It's more 
> like a conceptual draft or specification to which (b) and (c) are applied 
> in 
> the next iterations called "Beta" and "Gamma".
> 
> So what's the SOLUTION about?
> 
> 1) We are in the quest for a better (whatever "better" means) democracy, 
> aren't we?
> 2) We see e-democracy (whatever "e-democracy" means) as a promising answer 
> to improve democracy, right?
> 
> I would like to see the following as a specification for the SOLUTION:
> 
> The SOLUTION should...
> a) ... enable free choice of the tooling for every users.
> b) ... cover all parts of the decision making process.
> c) ... make all discourse related data entered by any user available to 
> others.
> 
> That's what AG Meinungsfindungstool is working on and we call it "d!sco" 
> (Discussion Ontology). Of course there is a lot discussion necessary to 
> clarify the details...
> 
> >
> >>> I agree with (a), but why restrict the user's choice to (b) and
> >>> (c)?  Suppose user U needs a toolset that covers only part of the
> >>> discourse, or part of the data.  Why not give U the same freedom
> >>> as others to choose according to personal need, or preference?
> >>> Who would have the authority to say, "No, that choice is not
> >>> permitted".
> >>
> >> That's not what I wanted to express. The user should not be
> >> restricted in any way, but can choose whatever toolset he wants,
> >> using whatever data he wants. Even if not any transition between
> >> tools might be reasonable in the context of the discourse.
> >
> > Then isn't the following what you mean to say?
> >
> >   (a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling.
> >
> > Period.  Or more precisely:
> >
> >   (a) Let each user freely choose his/her favorite tooling.
> >
> > If you agree to this, then please don't speak of other things in the
> > same connection.  Until we agree on (a), introducing (b) and (c) as
> > part of that agreement implies that you don't agree to (a) alone.
> 
> I - and AG MFT - fully agree on (a) as a constraint to the SOLUTION.
> 
> And (b) and (c) are further constraints to the SOLUTION.
> 
> >> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free
> >> to use the toolset of his free choice. But one big thing missing now
> >> is the availability of the data. When it comes to changing the
> >> tools, the move of already entered data is mainly the problem. And
> >> to be honest, I don't want to enter the data again, just because I
> >> switched the tool, do you?
> >
> > No, not if it's unecessary and harmful.  But more important, I would
> > like to have other tools to switch to *in the first place*.  I would
> > not like the other tools to be forbidden, or to have their development
> > impeded or limited in any way.
> 
> So neither I will.
> 
> > So here I return to (a) all alone,
> > when you wish in the same breath to speak of (b) and (c).  You said:
> >
> >> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free
> >> to use the toolset of his free choice. ...
> >
> > Today you are right.  But tomorrow?  I'm sorry to repeat, but we must
> > be especially clear on this issue.  A platform cannot succeed without
> > users.  There are exactly two ways to obtain those users:
> >
> >   (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus
> >       leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range
> >       freely from platform to platform.
> >
> >   (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
> >       platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.
> >
> > The fact that we have freedom of choice in 2013 does not give us
> > licence to take away that freedom in 2014 and to put a monopoly in its
> > place.  Of course not.  Yet that is exactly our intention if we aren't
> > working to obtain our users by method (1).  There are no grey areas in
> > between, so the only possible alternative is to obtain those users by
> > method (2), which is the opposite of free choice.
> >
> > In other words, if we really agree to (a), then we must work on (1).
> > And if we don't work on (1), then we don't really agree to (a).
> > Logically this is inescapable.
> 
> I am fine with (1) and therefore (a).
> 
> But thinking one step beyond, (b) and (c) are NOT conflicting with (a) from 
> my point of view.
> 
> >> I am not talking about merging plattforms - there should plenty of
> >> them exist. The trick is to make them cooperate by sharing data and
> >> enhancing the processes one another.
> >
> > There won't be plenty of platforms by default.  There will be exactly
> > one platform unless we cooperate to enable free choice.  We might have
> > state-of-the-art data transfers, but no platforms to transfer to.
> > We're living in a period that's like the laissez-faire of the 1800s.
> > Society has yet to learn the necessity of a safe environment for
> > competition.  Therefore we must cooperate to create our own safe
> > environment, or it'll be dog-eat-dog.  Only the biggest will survive.
> 
> That's why we are here, isn't it? To enable cooperation for a better 
> tomorrow.
> 
> > Of all the projects, AG Meinungsfindungstool is the most forward
> > thinking.  That's what attracted us (Thomas and me) to your earlier
> > powwows.  You understood the distinction between primary and decision
> > systems and the need to keep the two separate.  You understood the
> > need for discussion as opposed to the mindless pressing of vote
> > buttons.  And you were working to enable a free choice of tools, at
> > least within your own platform, which is (at least) a step in the
> > right direction.
> 
> What do you mean by "your own platform"? There is no such thing like A 
> PLATFORM in terms of AG MFT! Of course we have just started to work on some 
> reference implementations, but that's mainly a proof of concept. The 
> expected outcome is more like a cookbook: The Common Discussion Standard 
> (CDS). This is one possible SOLUTION that would respect (a), (b) and (c) 
> all 
> together.
> 
> Everyone is welcome to contribute to acquire this vision.
> 
> > These three things put you out in front of the field
> > and made it worthwhile talking to you.
> >
> > (And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this, even if
> > they don't see it yet.  So altogether it's a very interesting topic.)
> 
> Unfortunately from time to time it seems to me you are baked into old 
> belief 
> systems. The Pirate Party is just a vehicle to ride with for a while. It's 
> necessary to speed up things. Not more. Not less.
> 
> What else could I say? I'll try to focus it in german. Maybe someone is 
> able 
> to translate this into english better than I can:
> 
> 
> Der Punkt ist glaube ich, dass wir scheinbar genau dasselbe wollen, aber 
> auf 
> unterschiedlichen Detailebenen denken und argumentieren.
> 
> Es ist unstrittig, das die Benutzer die freie Wahl zwischen den Tools haben 
> müssen. Dies ist für mich die Grundbedingung (a), welche von einer LÖSUNG 
> erfüllt werden muss.
> 
> Allerdings gibt es noch zwei weitere Bedingungen, welche von der LÖSUNG 
> ebenfalls erfüllt sein sollten:
> 
> Die LÖSUNG sollte auch...
> b) ... den gesamten Prozess der Willensbildung abdecken.
> c) ... die von den Nutzern in den Diskursen erfassten Daten für alle 
> verfügbar machen können.
> 
> Diese Bedingungen schränken aber nicht den Benutzer, sondern die mögliche 
> LÖSUNG ein. Aber die LÖSUNG ist keine dedizierte Plattform oder spezielle 
> Implementierung. Es ist vielmehr eine Art Konzeption oder Spezifikation, 
> welche iterativ erarbeitet werden kann.
> 
> Die AG MFT arbeitet daran.
> 
> Wir fangen auch gerade an Referenzimplementierungen zu erstellen, welche 
> mehr unsere Theorien überprüfen sollen und als Ergebnis die Verabschiedung 
> einer gemeinsamen Standardisierung für Diskussionen haben könnten: The 
> Common Discussion Standard.
> 
> Wir nennen den Prototypen "d!sco" (Discussion Ontology). Hier gibt es 
> natürlich noch jede menge offener Detailfragen zu klären.
> 
> Jeder ist herzlich eingeladen an dieser Vision mitzuarbeiten!
> 
> 
> Cheers
> marc