Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Reputation device

Expand Messages
  • persaur
    ... As one of those people ... ownership and property rights are both social contracts. A framework of reputations owned by a monolithic community would be
    Message 1 of 41 , Sep 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In decentralization@y..., Todd Boyle <tboyle@r...> wrote:

      > But the key thing is, who the heck do you think owns your
      > reputation? Answer: the community, not YOU. People working on
      > reputation frameworks surely recognize this fact, on some level,
      >
      > Todd

      As one of those people ... ownership and property rights are both
      social contracts. A framework of reputations owned by a
      monolithic "community" would be the worst possible combination of a
      small town and Orwellian nation-state. The act of observation alters
      that being observed. A history of observations inevitably constrains
      future actions.

      A multiplicity of "communities", decentralized and diverse, is an
      acceptable alternative provided that, (a) individuals explicitly
      enter into contracts (social and legal) that define their reputation
      in each community, (b) there is horizontal audit transparency of
      reputation data (i.e. no special rights for community owners,
      affiliates or law enforcement), and (c) there is sufficient financial
      and cultural separation between communities to incent meaningful
      choice (a market) in social contracts.

      In this context, "community" = country, state, county, town, company,
      audience, market, industry sector, discussion group, search engine,
      weblog or other shared-risk ecosystem.

      Decentralized = geographical + policy decentralization.

      100% transparency does not lead to loss of privacy. 100%
      transparency leads to loss of speech. All speech and action becomes
      part of a continuous game of posturing, creative writing and mediocre
      (not even amateur) performance art.

      Community boundaries segment risk, define topology and vary
      feedback. They are necessary for evolution, learning and behavior
      change (historical role of reputation systems).

      Moving faster does not make time less important. It makes distance
      more important, as an alternate unit of separation.

      Rich


      --
      http://b8d.net
    • Rikard Linde
      Although the symposium doesn t specifically deal with decentralized reputation systems I suspect it will be an important topic. Some of the names seem familiar
      Message 41 of 41 , Oct 16, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Although the symposium doesn't specifically deal with
        decentralized reputation systems I suspect it will be
        an important topic. Some of the names seem familiar
        from discussions at this list. Check it out:

        http://www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/reputation/symposium/cfp.htm

        and a related site:

        http://databases.si.umich.edu/reputations/


        /Rikard Linde
        www.opentactics.com

        _____________________________________________________
        Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
        Busenkelt!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.