Re: Getting in touch

Mr. Seiffert-

Sorry for the formal address; I don't know how to properly render your first name. Also, please forgive me for pasting a general response below; I don't have time to re-write this for everyone, but if you have any questions or suggestions, I will certainly get back to you. Here's my pitch, then:

***

A description of the network's specifics may be found below my signature, but first, here's a summary of what we're doing in general.

This effort is called Project PM. The major goals are to (a) discredit prominent pundits such as Thomas Friedman and Charles Krauthammer in order to reduce their negative influence on U.S. policy and (b) increase the positive influence of the more capable segments of the blogosphere. Both of these goals are to be pursued in part by way of the deliberate generation of critical mass among bloggers in such a manner as that segments of the traditional media will be prompted/forced to address certain critical issues as determined by a collective array of the most erudite and dependable bloggers in existence. A third goal that does not require the same critical mass or temporary control over the traditional media infrastructure involves the development of a communicational schematic that is superior to anything else in existence in terms providing bloggers with the best possible feed of raw information by which to produce content, as well as the best method by which readers can most easily find the best and most important of this content without having to sift through duplicate or sub-standard info, which is to say that it will discard some of the problems inherent to reddit, memeorandum, and other such sources as exist today (more on how this is to be accomplished may be seen below). All of this is to be achieved by way of Project PM network, which itself will make use of open-source software being designed for the purpose and developed by a fellow with a brilliant track record in innovative IT implementations.

Along with this fundamental effort to improve the information flow within the Western media in particular, I'm placing a particular effort on increasing the ability of skeptical commentators - folks within the Scienceblogs network, for instance - in such a way as that their debunking may reach the audience that would most benefit from such debunking, which is to say people who do not read skeptical outlets. Again, this is to be achieved by way of some of the dynamics described above and below, specifically by way of me bringing several skeptic bloggers into the network at an early point so as to facilitate network growth that is more likely to incorporate other skeptics and avoid the integration of participants who are decidedly credulous.

Obviously, this is not some magic bullet that will turn the media into an optimal system, but it will certainly have some positive effect, and to the extent that we can integrate more and more people into the network, this effect will of course be amplified. Meanwhile, others will no doubt adopt some of the methods we have developed for use in their own efforts. Perhaps most importantly, this will demonstrate to others that we are nowhere near fulfilling the positive potential of the internet as a medium, and get them thinking about the manner in which the internet provides us with the ability to provide for a degree of actionable collaboration among some of the world's most reasonable people in such a way that would have been impossible only a decade ago. Insomuch as that collaboration is the means by which human affairs are driven, such a grouping as makes use of intelligent, honest, and influential individuals and then gives them a means of communication and action that is even slightly superior to any other in existence would have unprecedented potential to achieve positive change, particularly by means of perpetuating information - information being, again, the fuel of human activity.

Moreover, I am not seeking to patent and copyright any segment of the network or any associated functionality, and the software is, again, open-source; others will no doubt replicate and even improve on the end result, and years hence we will hopefully see new implementations of an even more useful nature. To that extent, skeptics will have vastly improved means to compete in the informational landscape with those who peddle superstition and nonsense, just as reasonable people in general will be on improved footing in their ability to combat unreason. This is important insomuch as that the world's hucksters are of course already using the internet to increase their access to the credulous, and both groups outnumber us. Our best chance in dealing with such things is to take advantage of our strengths, which of course are found in our ability to implement clever ideas that actually work, rather than, say, prayer homeopathy.

Again, I've pasted below a rough draft summary of the network and how it functions. Take a look and let me know if you have any other questions. Feel free to forward this to anyone else that you consider to be intellectually honest, capable, and interested in doing something ambitious.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown

Brooklyn, NY

512-560-2302

Project PM Network Summary

The institutions and structures that have developed over the past two decades of accelerating public internet use have had what we reasonably describe as a wholesome effect on information flow. But the information age is a work in progress, and thus there are potential improvements to be made. More importantly, there are improvements that can be made by an initially small number of influential participants working in coordination. The purpose of Project PM is to implement these solutions to the extent that participants are collectively able to do so, as well as to demonstrate the beneficial effects of these solutions to others that they might be spurred to recreate or even build upon them independently of our own efforts.

The Problems

Project PM is intended to address the following inefficiencies:

(a) Watering down of contributor quality within participatory networks: Open institutions such as reddit.comtend to peak in terms of the erudition of the content conveyed a few years after coming about, with this being due to the particular dynamics of network growth. By definition, early users are early adapters, who themselves tend to be better-informed and otherwise relatively capable in terms of the value they bring to the network. To even know of such networks early in their existence is to pass a certain sort of test regarding the potential quality of one's contributions; as knowledge of the network expands, this "test" becomes easier, and to the extent that it does, the network is less "protected" from those who did not pass such a test by virtue of the fact that they did not know of the network until knowledge became more common. Obviously, failing to be aware of some particular institution does not come anywhere near precluding one from being intelligent and knowledgable in general and thus of value to the institution, but the influx of valuable participants versus damaging participants appears to decrease after a certain level of notoriety is reached. Again, the decline in the intellectual relevance of content at reddit.com is a good example of this.

(b) Data overflow: The watering down process described above does not only result in one coming across information of relatively low quality, but also in having to contend with more of it. On reddit.com, for instance, a user who scans new submissions will find not only a certain amount of potentially useful information, but also some amount of almost certainly useless information. The watering down of contributor quality also contributes to the extent to which the latter is perpetuated within the network itself insomuch as that lesser contributors are more likely to vote up useless information, thus helping to ensure that the barriers built into the network in order to facilitate the viewing of important rather than unimportant content - in this case, a pre-established threshold of up votes necessary to bring something to the front page - will thereby lose their effectiveness.

(c) Barriers to obtaining raw data: The obvious fact of data overflow - that some data is more useful than other data - is dealt with by means of selecting certain sources of information which one has identified as being a provider of quality output relative to other sources. Bloggers and others who require a steady stream of data in order to operate have certain methods of obtaining that data, and there is of course no reason to believe that any of these methods could not be improved upon to an extent that these improvements would be worth adapting. One has RSS feeds flowing from sources one has selected (and by virtue of having been selected, the sources must have been necessarily known to the blogger in the first place); one has algorithm-based sites like Memorandum.com (which merely shows what bloggers are talking about rather than necessarily providing any insight into what they should be talking about); one has democratic or pseudo-democratic sites such as reddit.com and digg.com; and one has the fundamentally one-way outlets of television and newspapers, the content of which is decided upon by a handful of producers or editors (who themselves are working within an incidental structure that does not appear to be of much value relative to what may now be found among the better portions of the blogosphere). A means of obtaining data that improves upon these and all other methods would be of great utility insomuch as that the quality of data is of course one major limiting factor with regards to the quality of output..

The Solutions

By way of a network designed to take better advantage of the existing informational environment, Project PM can help to remedy the problems described above without significant effort on the part of participants, yet with potentially dramatic results on the efficiency of information flow.

(a) Watering down of contributor quality within participatory networks: Project PM will greatly reduce the accumulation of low-value contributors by way of the method by which contributors are brought it. The network will be established with a handful of contributors who have been selected by virtue of intellectual honesty, proven expertise in certain topics, and journalistic competence in general. Each of these contributors has the option of inviting into the network any number of other bloggers, each of whom will initially be connected only to the contributor who brought him in. Each of these new participants also has the option of bringing others into the network in the same fashion as well as offering a connection to any other participant, as will anyone they bring in, and so on. To the extent that the original participants are of value in terms of their judgement, they may be expected to bring in participants of similarly high value, and so on; meanwhile, as the network expands, participants will be likely to form new direct connections to others whom they have determined to be of particular value relative to other participants, and conversely, to disestablish any direct connections they might have established to those whose output they find to be below par. Of course, none of this precludes the network from eventually encompassing participants of low desirability relative to that of the average participant, but to the extent that such a thing occurs, its effect are largely neutralized by way of the dynamic described below.

(b) Data overflow: Information flows through the Project PM network by way of a single button accessible to each participant. When a participant either writes or receives a blog post or other informational element, the participant may "push" the item, thus sending it to all of those with whom he is directly connected in the network. In such a case as a participant pushes forward items that others may determine to be of little merit, the resulting clutter is only seen by the participant who brought such a low-value blogger into the network in the first place, as well as those whom the low-value blogger has to this point brought in himself along with those who have agreed to connect with him from elsewhere in the network. To the extent that a given participant exercises good judgment in establishing connections, then, he will only receive informational elements of value while also being able to quickly transmit them to contributors who will be able to make best use of such information. Meanwhile, below-average participants will have only very limited means by which to clutter the network, as informational elements become less likely to be pushed forward as they approach above-average participants within the network, who themselves are "buffered" from such things by way of the competent participants with whom they surround themselves by way of their connections and who, by virtue of their competence, are unlikely to push forward low-value information.

(c) Barriers to obtaining raw data: The dynamics described in (a) and (b) collectively provide for a means of information inflow that should theoretically be superior to any other medium currently in existence in terms of overall quality, both by virtue of the network's improved organizational methods as well as the relatively high competence of participating bloggers relative to members of the traditional media outlets as a whole. Accessibility to particularly valuable items of information will be enhanced further by the option to set one's widget in such a way as to display any piece of information from the network, regardless of "proximity," if such information is pushed forward (which is to say, approved of other participants) a certain number of times. This should help to ensure that, as the network expands, particularly valuable information does not become unduly "regionalized." A variant on the widget for use by readers (as opposed to network participants) displaying information that meets similar thresholds of popularity within the network would likewise provide those readers with a source of information above and beyond other existing mediums.