John Clippinger is giving a presentation about his just-published book, A Crowd of One: The Future of Identity. [As always, I’m typing quickly, missing some stuff, getting things wrong, and making a seamless talk sound all choppy. But in this case, the remedy is easy: If you want to know more about what John is saying, buy his book.]

John approaches human nature through evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Identity, he says, is social and multiple. Trusted identity is essential for community, he says. And he’s interested in how virtual worlds “allow us to build new kinds of institutions, economies and identities.”

The brain is not a blank slate, he says, citing Steven Pinker. The brain is “highly specialized, opportunistic, and jerry-rigged.” Some of our most important decisions originate at a prec-conscious level. This is very different from thinking we make rational decisions. “It’s more a reflex.” He points to our “mirror neurons,” that enable us to have empathy. Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau, and the Enlightenment are wrong. Research shows that our natural inclination is to reciprocate, trust and coordinate. Virtual worlds are the new state of nature. You may think you can create any identity you want, but “our identities are socially embedded.” And we all have multiple selves.

How do you have a trusted community on the Net? You need a persistent, trusted identity, says John. “But the Web was born without an identity layer.” We need one. Just look at all the fraud, flaming and phishing. “How do you make people accountable for their actions without having overly draconian measures? You have to have some way of creating a cost for breaking the rules, being deceptive, etc.” John refers to biological signalling theory — there’s a cost for deception. [I may be getting this wrong.] You want to make the cost greater than the payoff. That’s essential to any kind of trust network, says John.

In re-imagining identity as the virtual and real worlds become more intertwingled, people will want control over their identities. They’ll want to have a persistent identity. They’ll want multiple identities, the ability to take their identity info in and out of different virtual worlds. They’ll want a range of degrees of identification, from anonymity to authenticated anonymity to complete disclosure. And they’ll want to develop peer networks of trust and authentication.

Over the past two years, John’s been working on a project called “Higgins,” an open source interoperable identity system. (It’s called “Higgins” because higgins is a long-tail mouse.)

We are getting “new narratives about cultural and political futures, not laden with moralistic doctrine.” This is a kind of “social physics”: there are some predictable behaviors and phenomena. It looks for “evolutionary stable strategies.”

There’s an opportunity, John says, to invent new digital institutions: governance mechanisms, more reliance about measured risk and reputation, transparency and accountability for all forms of authority, and acceserated social innovation through digital experimentation. He says the Chinese are very interested in social physics because they want to know if there are rules are principles they can use. [China’s interest in social physics as a way of predicting and managing social behavior is not necessarily a good thing.]

Q: [me] Having an identity layer would solve of bunch of problems, but is there demand for identity itself, as opposed to a demand for solving those problems?
A: At SecondLife I was surprised that people do want to be able to authenticate themselves to others. But that doesn’t mean they know your real world identity. There are degrees and types of authentication and identity. The user gets to control it. You may give up small attributes or fragments of your identity for particular purposes in particular circumstances. Community norms will arise to govern that.

Q: Is it to authenticate you as a consistent person or to get to a level of trust?
A: There is a need for persistence, frequently, although that can just be a number. And there’s another issue about whether you can authenticate the claims you make about yourself. Another party may have to authenticate those, and they may change over time.

Q: How will reputation factor in the changing nature of public opinion? E.g., Don Imus.
A: You have to be careful what you mean by reputation. It may be people rating each other for particular attributes, e.g., trustworthiness at eBay. Those are often easily gamed. I’m interested in work being done on understanding how the immune system [the real one] identifiers cheaters.

Q: Do you see a role for government?
A: Government is going to play an important role. When you have a Linden Dollars exchange, [where Second Life money can be brokered for real money], the government will get involved. And when you set up ecommerce sites, identity matters.

Q: [me] Right now, sites solve their identity problems differently, and generally satisfactorily, pretty much. Given that there are risks to having an identity layer, at what point do we say the ad hoc system is broken enough that we want to have such a layer?
A: The layer won’t be uniform. There are risks of abuse, of course, but the identity layer will be an interoperable set of tools for disclosing what users want to disclose.

Q: [chris meyer] Massachusetts no longer uses the SSN for drivers licenses, presumably because it’s insecure to have a single number encode so much…
A: There may be one number that makes multiple sign-ins far more convenient. That will enable innovation. But you can’t get that without a pretty sophisticated layer underneath. Ad hoc-ery will give way, but not necessarily to uniformity.

Q: People worry about uniform identity not in Second Life but in larger systems. E.g., people have proposed used SpeedPass to use to issue tickets for speeding in the tunnel.
A: They’d be persistent, not consistent. It’d be hard to link them. And people will not do business with businesses that betray them.

Q: [chris meyer] Transparency is two sided. When you suggest it, people get worried that they’ll connect up too much information. When does transparency engender trust and when does it not?
A: Transparency may be transparency on not your full identity but on a chosen set of attributes.

Q: Integrated health care records are important for healthcare. If you try to set up a false identity, you could hurt yourself badly from a healthcare perspective.
A: [irving wladawsky-berger] When it comes to health care and children, I believe there will be legislation.
A: [someone else] Yet at Virginia Tech, people didn’t know the killer had been hospitalized because of privacy laws.
A: [clippinger] Right now it’s ham-fisted. It’s either/or. We need it to be more flexible so people can see what they need to see. That’s the new generation of social technology we now need.

[Fascinating, although I remain skeptical about the need for an “identity layer.” And the reception afterward was a great time to talk with some amazing folks, including the Clipmeister himself.]

[Tags: john_clippinger identity berkman everything_is_miscellaneous]

2 Comments »

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager, has joined the Edwards’ campaign.

I’ve been doing some volunteer work for that campaign. Having Trippi on board makes me very happy. If you want to know why, read Trippi’s book, The Revolution Will Not be Televised. Joe understands the transformative power of the Net, he understands that it’s about we the people connecting and taking democracy into our own hands, and he is an inspiring — and yes, sometimes maddening — leader.Trippi and the team he assembled invented a lot of what’s most important in the Internetting of politics. He’s got a ton of feet-on-the-ground experience in politics, but I’m betting he’s not anywhere near done innovating. Trippi’s an idealist who kicks butt. And that’s just what the Edwards campaign needs now, imo.

(And while you’re ordering books, I strongly recommend Elizabeth Edwards’ Saving Graces, which is heartbreakingly insightful and true about many things, including the Internet.)

I think this is a very good day for the Edwards’ campaign. And that means it’s a day in which our democracy has gotten a little more lively. [Tags: john_edwards joe_trippi politics]

3 Comments »

Twitter limits you to 140 characters per posting. You see the postings of people in your social network. The limit encourages frequent postings of small significance.

Twitter thus sounds dumb.

In fact, Twitter is about the intimacy of details. Through it I see small events in the lives of friends about whom I otherwise might only learn the Big Events when we “catch up” after long intervals. [Tags: twitter everything_is_miscellaneous ]

4 Comments »

I’m at the Word of Mouth Marketing Association meeting in New Orleans where I sat a lunch table with Scott Anderson, CEO of Union Diamond, the second largest seller of diamonds over the Internet. His company’s phone policy is that if a telephone rings for twenty seconds, that’s ten seconds too long. Everyone in the company is charged with answering calls and seeing them through. I asked him how he’ll manage this as the company gets bigger. He said he’s like to continue the policy but perhaps have a set of numbers that would direct calls to the right group within the company.

BTW, Scott says that they support the Kimberly process, and only buy from suppliers who certify that they are not selling conflict diamonds.

Nice guy, good policies…I’m ready to buy! I wonder what of mine would look good studded with diamonds…

Here’s a random sampling of topics (Day 1 Day 2) at the WOMMA meeting:

JetBlue: Inside the Cockpit of their CrewBlue Brand Ambassador Network

General Mills: Using Community Outreach to Build Buzz

TheFind.com: Tapping into the Web’s Power Influencers — Women

Yahoo!: Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Contest with Yahoo! Video and Jumpcut

Flying Dog Brewery: Leveraging Your Brand’s Intrinsic Values

CASA: Honing Refer-A-Friend Word of Mouth Tactics in a Not-for-Profit Setting

Cold Stone Creamery: Using PR as an Integrated Marketing Tool

O, The Oprah Magazine: Driving Brand Advocacy with Special Events

Here’s the WOMMA code of ethics. They take it seriously. I talked with the group this morning about the importance of respecting not just the “consumer” (as their first principle states), but respecting the conversation as well. What would marketing look like if it took the ongoing customer conversations as paramount?

[Tags: womma marketing union_diamond ethics business ]

3 Comments »

The French have developed a “code of conduct” for bloggers—a project begun in Feb. 2006 but with longer roots—that has been adopted by 200 blogs and two major political parties. It mixes netiquette (don’t use all caps), best practices (“When replying to a comment, it can be useful to quote from the original text in order to be understood”) and ethical rules (“Comments of a racist, anti-Semitic, pornographic, revisionist or sexist nature will not be accepted…”).

From my point of view, it is one possible set of guidelines. We should have lots and lots of them so that — when appropriate — bloggers can make explicit the norms already implicit on their sites.

This evening at 9pm in France, there’s going to be a Second Life discussion about the code with the person responsible for the Net campaign of Ségolène Royal. Details here. (I’ll be on a plane, so I’ll have to miss it, which is just as well given my ludicrously bad French.)

(I blogged about blogging codes here and about my own guidelines in the comments to this post.)

[Tags: blogosphere blogs codes morals cyberbullying ]

1 Comment »

I’m still sleep-dprived, but I’ve had a day to think about what I posted yesterday about truth being a property of networks.

It would have been clearer for me to say understanding is a property of networks. Then I wouldn’t have left the impression that I think facts are a matter of majority opinion. Facts are facts. That’s pretty much their essence. Understanding, however, is plural, at least in many domains — less so in the sciences, more so in the humanities.

On the other hand, our age should be embarrassed that we’ve reduced truth to mere facts.

[Tags: truth philosphy everything_is_miscellaneous]

5 Comments »

Harvard Law has approved a course I’ll be co-teaching with the Berkman Center’s John Palfrey during Spring 2008. Holy crap.

It’s called The Web Difference? Digital Media, Entertainment, and the Law. Here’s the description:

This course will examine the claim of Internet exceptionalism and the implications of this claim in the context of the law and society. Is the Web something substantially new that is changing the fundamentals of who we are and how we’re together? Or is it just the next in the communication media humans have invented? What are the problems to which these changes give rise? Which of these problems are ones that we’d like to address through reforms in the law, technology environment, markets, social norms, or other yet-to-be-discovered modes of influence? This course will cover the legal and policy issues to which changes in the news media and entertainment businesses, wrought by the web, give rise. Key doctrinal areas of inquiry include intellectual property, the First Amendment, defamation, and privacy. Students should be prepared to experiment with new technologies, including a course weblog, and to perform some coursework collaboratively. Course requirements include gro up coursework and a final paper, and no examination.

Oy. Not only haven’t I taught since 1986, the topics the course plans on covering are way beyond my reach. So, thank heaven for John Palfrey. I am totally thrilled to work with him. (I won’t go on to list JP’s virtues both because he’s modest and because he’s my boss at the Berkman Center. But you can just ask anyone.)

By the way, does anyone know what “gro up coursework” is? [Tags: harvard berkman exceptionalism john_palfrey teaching]

8 Comments »

We’ve all got a real problem. On some sites comments are so nasty that they are driving people off the Web. Even if the comments on your own site are always respectful and sweet-natured, the verbal violence on other sites is your problem. Our problem. It’s not as bad as some in the media portray it, but when Kathy Sierra gets over a thousand messages, mainly from women, saying they’ve been stalked or bullied, it’s an issue we can’t ignore.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution. A Blogger Code of Conduct goes down the wrong path. Codes only can play a role if they’re plural. Very plural.

Lisa Stone puts it all well when she explains why a “one-stop-shopping” code can’t work for all:

Images that are appropriate for a blog devoted to the war in Iraq would never work on a parenting site, for example. They shouldn’t have to play by the same rules. And we all know how I feel about the First Amendment. :)

So, here’s a longer way around to the same point. (More of Lisa here.)

The first and least debatable Blogger Code of Conduct is the body of law that sets limits on what we can say in public. Death threats, libel, and giving away state secrets are all out. But when we try to get more specific than “No death threats! No nuclear secrets!” what do we really all agree about? A Code of Swimming Pool Conduct that says “Swim safely!” is of little use. The only code worth posting poolside says things like “No diving. No swimming without a buddy. ” But what’s the equivalent for blogging, that is, for talking together in public? A single code of conduct would need to drive down into specifics about which bloggers disagree.

Further, no single code could cover all the different ways we want to talk. Conversation shapes itself to its topic, venue, goal and personal relationships. For example, if I’m arguing with a like-minded friend about politics, my social group’s norm allows me to be more interruptive and use more curse words than if I’m talking with an acquaintance from the other side of the fence. Our norms tell us exactly how much bad language we can use with our family, at work, at the sports stadium, and when meeting our future in-laws for the first time. We know how loud we can talk whether it’s sermon time at the synagogue or South of the Border Night at the bar. There is no possibility of coming up with a single code of conduct because there are too many circumstances in which we conduct ourselves. We are left, ultimately, with our judgment.

Behind the drive for a single code of conduct is often the idea that there is one particular type of conversation at the pinnacle of all conversations: The rational discourse in which two people who disagree work toward the truth. Civility is important there. I’m thrilled to be at an institution — the Berkman Center — where those sorts of conversations happen every day. But those are not the only sorts of conversations we should, could, would, will or do have. Some conversations should be raucous. Some should get people red in the face. Some should have us leaving muttering under our breath. Polite, respectful civil conversations are not the only ones worth having because conversation is about much more than the mutual discovery of truth. Conversation is how we’re social, and thus is as rich, ambiguous, implicit, and multipurpose as we ourselves are. Yes, as Tim O’Reilly says, “Free speech is enhanced by civility.” Definitely. We need more civility. But free speech is also enhanced by healthy doses of incivility. In our drive to limit harmful speech, we need to be careful to preserve risky speech.

Of course, that’s assuming a particular model of civility. If, instead, by “civil” one means only that the conversation should be respectful, then I agree that many more conversations need to be civil. But: (a) Respect is not always the highest value of a conversation. (b) What constitutes disrespectful or injurious speech depends upon the target, the speaker and the context (again, ruling out posts that cross the boundaries of the law and our shared sense of decency). (c) A code of conduct that says that, for example, we should be “respectful” will founder on the details of implementation since there are so many norms about what constitutes respectful discourse — sitting in a quiet room with our hands on the table and our heads cocked attentively being only one scenario. Without the implementation details, the code is as useful as the “Swim safely” poster at the pool.

But then we come back to the problem: People violated – threatened, bullied and stalked – by thugs wielding keyboards. When those comments cross the legal boundaries, there may be legal recourse, although usually that’s not practical. It is a problem with no easy or short-term solution. When the comments are posted on the victim’s own site, there are tools for dealing with them, although none works perfectly. A blogger can moderate the comments, perhaps add a reputation system, or even forbid anonymity. A code of conduct is one more tool in the box. Such a code makes explicit the rules already implicitly governing a comment space. As we come across blogs more and more randomly, it often doesn’t hurt to be told that a site won’t tolerate bad language or wants commenters to stay on topic, if those are the local norms. Bloggers can of course state that already — there’s an infinite supply of sentences — and many do, but coming up with standard ways of expressing the rules would encourage their expression.(That’s what I was suggesting 1.5 wks ago, and it’s what I like in Tim’s idea.) Transparency generally is good.Posting rules of the pool that make explicit the existing implicit norms can be a worthwhile tool…although pasting a long list of precise rules can indeed inhibit free swim.

As for encouraging civility: Absolutely. I like civility. Truly. I encourage it on this blog’s comment pages, and I even try to model it on occasion. But I also like a good fart and a high five now and then.

[Tags: blogs civility kathy_sierra bullying cyberbullying convesation free_speech lisa_stone tim_oreilly everything_is_miscellaneous berkman]

Heather Havenstein of ComputerWorld interviews Lisa Stone on this very topic…

11 Comments »

Here’s the announcement of an evening of thoughtful thought thoughtfully presented by at The New School on April 13:

danah boyd will argue four points. 1) Networked publics are changing the way public life is organized. 2) Our understandings of public/private are being radically altered 3) Participation in public life is critical to the functioning of democracy. 4) We have destroyed youths’ access to unmediated public life. Why are we now destroying their access to mediated public life? What consequences does this have for democracy?

Trebor Scholz will present the paradox of affective immaterial labor. Content generated by networked publics was the main reason for the fact that the top ten sites on the World Wide Web accounted for most Internet traffic last year. Community is the commodity, worth billions. The very few get even richer building on the backs of the immaterial labor of very very many. Net publics comment, tag, rank, forward, read, subscribe, re-post, link, moderate, remix, share, collaborate, favorite, write. They flirt, work, play, chat, gossip, discuss, learn and by doing so they gain much: the pleasure of creation, knowledge, micro-fame, a “home,” friendships, and dates. They share their life experiences and archive their memories while context-providing businesses get value from their attention, time, and uploaded content. Scholz will argue against this naturalized “factory without walls” and will demand for net publics to control their own contributions.

Ethan Zuckerman will present his work on issues of media and the developing world, especially citizen media, and the technical, legal, speech, and digital divide issues that go alongside it. Starting out with a critique of cyberutopianism, Zuckerman will address citizen media and activism in developing nations, their potential for democratic change, the ways that governments (and sometimes corporations) are pushing back on their ability to democratize.

Friday, April 13, 2007, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
The New School, Theresa Lang Community and Student Center
55 West 13th Street, 2nd floor
New York City
Admission: $8, free for all students, New School faculty, staff, and alumni with valid ID

I wish I could be there. [Tags: danah_boyd trebor_scholz ethan_zuckerman sociology economics media ]

3 Comments »

Ethanz’s got a great post about how the Tunisians beat the Obamanaics to the punch, remixing the Apple 1984 commercial for their own political ends three years ago. You can see the Tunisian version here, but you don’t want to miss Ethan’s contextualizing of it. [Tags: ethan_zuckerman remix copyright obama tunisia ]

Be the first to comment »