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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

PS - Oh dear, I misquoted Alex's translation.  I gave the Google
one instead.  Sorry about that.  Here's Alex's real translation:

   Wir müssen uns darüber klar werden: Eine Plattform kann ohne
   Benutzer nicht erfolgreich sein.  Es gibt nur zwei Wege Nutzer zu
   bekommen:

     (1) Den Netzeffekt zwischen Plattformen beseitigen, also gleiche
         Wettbewerbsbedingungen schaffen und Nutzern ermöglichen die
         Plattform jederzeit zu wechseln.

         Das ist der richtige Weg.

     (2) Sich auf Netzeffekte verlassen um alle Nutzer auf die eigene
         Plattform zu zwingen, also ein de facto Monopol zu errichten.

         Das ist schädlich und unnötig und deshalb falsch.

   Diese beiden Wege sind die einzigen Wege.  Es gibt keine
   Kompromisse zwischen diesen beiden Alternativen.  Wenn wir uns
   nicht für Weg (1) entscheiden, dann entscheiden wir uns für Weg (2)
   und kein verantwortungsvoller Ingenieur wird dann mit uns
   zusammenarbeiten.  Statt dessen wird ein solcher uns auf die
   Gefahren hinweisen und uns davor warnen weiter zu machen.

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

Mike


Michael Allan said:
> (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?