Yo-
What's up with you and Applebaum now? Also, here's a more complete
(but still not quite finished) guide to how the schematic works, plus
a section I wrote on the pitfalls of IRC, and a chart referenced in
the former, attached; still have a couple sections to go plus will be
re-writing some of this and including whatever feedback I get from you
down the line. This first one starts with the last paragraph of "The
Schematic" portion that I sent you a few days ago:
A mark is an element that a circle can create. It may merely consist
of a word or phrase or idea, or a whole paragraph or more of text. Or
it might be a link to a pastebin or a website or forum or IRC channel.
It could be a picture. It may be set so that others may find it via
search, whether others may duplicate it to their own circles and thus
prompt it to spread, that it be viewable only to others in a pursuant,
or to anyone who views the pursuance (incidentally, such an observer
will get some variable degree of information about the pursuances
parts and its work, depending on which such things are set to be
viewable by the pursuance and/or the parts themselves; alternatively,
it may choose to make its entire structure and the monikers or real
names of participants entirely invisible to outsiders). For instance,
a mark could simply be set to be findable via a term set as an issue
topic category, such as Financial Sector, and include some idea
that the creator has conceived and would others interested in the
subject to find. This is among several different manners in which a
circle may communicate with others beyond its own pursuant.
Lets see how the schematic itself tends to work. Our protagonist,
Bill Givesadamn, joins the pursuant network with the intent of doing
something about the private prison industry and its political weight.
He is now on the plane, represented by a circle He looks over the
existing pursuants via a search or visually, using the software to
examine the plane to get a sense of the individual structures in
operation. Not finding one that deals with his issue of choice, or not
being confident of those operating one that does and is also taking
new members (a list of their accomplishments or summary of their
strategy would be among the things theyd like make visible to
prospective members), Bill decides to create a square. This he invests
with the intent to pursue the private prisons issue. If he does not
choose to found the pursuance himself - perhaps he is neurotic - he
may simply drop it into space, where some other person will hopefully
find it to be worth doing and start the pursuant himself; Bill might
also have chosen to invest the square with a couple of notes on the
issue, some ideas he had on how it might work, and whatever other
materials he finds appropriate.
But in fact, our Bill is entirely willing to start the pursuant
himself, and now he and his nascent enterprise are represented on the
plane as a circle linked directly to a square. Having any number of
ways in which he may proceed and customize the group, he begins by
recruiting for three positions he believes would be helpful at this
point - a researcher, a writer, and a graphic designer. He writes up a
quick job description for each, noting the brand of activism to be
pursued and perhaps a bit on how his own professional background or
skill set makes him a reasonably good person to lead for now. Now, he
and his pursuant are represented by something like Figure 1a. (see
attached), with each prong being an open position directly under
Bill - who could have also asked for someone to partner with him on
running the pursuant itself, thereby giving that person co-control
over how the pursuance can expand out of his own circle, along with
certain other customizable factors effecting the pursuance as a whole.
In the case of such a partnership position being offered, we would
also see a prong jutting out of the square, which, again, is the
source of all authority within the pursuant.
Bill wants to run things himself for now, though. Eventually, and
perhaps after rejecting several applicants, Bill finds the three
people he needed for the roles established under him (either they saw
the job description, or Bill was searching through list of those
circles bearing a mark like Looking for job and listing their
backgrounds. Some of those circles out there who viewed the roles and
the initial structure might have lost interest upon seeing that things
arent run especially democratically, being themselves the sort that
dont like to work under anyone, or perhaps just not under a total
unknown. But all three of those who did join are happy to be working
on this under Bills leadership; any of them might also hope to one
day be chosen by Bill to share control of the pursuances output, or
to be given the authority to bring on new people either under himself
or on an equal working basis.
For now, though, things are simple; the researcher looks for
little-known facts on private prisons, as requested by Bill, and then
provides the information to the writer, who creates blog posts, press
releases, and other collateral intended to educate the public or
elected representatives, prompt scrutiny by journalists, or whatever
specifically is intended. Bill has the graphic artist do some charts
or illustrations to accompany their blog posts, and perhaps also do
some online posters for submission to social networks like reddit.
Perhaps Bill also contacts the media directly on occasion, or gives
talks at protests, or spend a good deal of time reading up on new
developments, or doing research of his own. Regardless of the
specifics, the little group is a going concern, and is represented by
Figure 1b.
Things go well over the first month or two, during which our
participants might also create their own marks bearing ideas or
materials of potential use to others, or asking for solutions to
specific problems that they find themselves facing in the course of
their work, or whatever; they may be particularly active in the
plane-level exchange of info and assistance, or they may stick to
their own work for the most part. Either way, Bill eventually decides
its time to expand again; their work would benefit greatly from having
a couple of other people work on research. Bill respects his current
researcher quite a bit and decides to put her in charge of the
expansion; with his control of the pursuances square, he grants her
the ability to create three prongs. Jane, as shes called, proceeds
accordingly.
Jane has a friend whos especially competent at digging up
information, and who would be of great help to the project, but who
would probably insist on being Janes partner, rather than
subordinate. Janes talks her into joining up and then uses her
authority to create a partnership prong - linking her friend
directly to her in such a way as to give her same authority she
herself has. Other than to codify the relationship, this variation on
the standard authority connection is entirely irrelevant within the
network schematic for purposes of exact interactions and divvying up
of work, which is up to the participants in question; its actual
effect is to allow the person to invite their own single participants
to link with them in some way.
The Pros and Cons of IRC
The pursuant system is broader in scope than IRC and its functionally
bears little relation to how it operates, and so should generally be
viewed in a broader context than its relationship to that medium. But
it does warrant a comprehensive comparison by virtue of being
presented, among other things, as a replacement for IRC as the central
organizing venue for the online activists to whom the system is
largely catered, if not as a complete substitute; under many
imaginable pursuants or associated networks thereof, IRC could be put
to good use as a supplement, especially to the extent that the
collective usership is sufficiently focused.
That an environment given to such focus is often difficult to maintain
- and impossible to approach without continuous attention and active,
negative feedback on the part of individuals provided with moderator
status over channels - is one of the two fundamental problems inherent
to IRC as activist platform. To the extent that such moderators take a
hands-off approach to defining the environment, it can easily slip
into entirely unproductive discussion and activity on a regular basis
- or even the vast majority of the time, as has been the case with
several channels and even entire servers that once attracted
reasonably active users prone to performing the necessary work.
Contrarily, to the extent that moderators find themselves attempting
to minimize disruption, generally via the kicking or banning of
individuals, they not only use up time, but subject themselves to
participation in personal conflicts that are likewise distracting, can
accumulate over time,
As it stands, many IRC moderators within the online activist community
take a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards the level of conversation
and the nature of the conduct engaged in by regulars and visitors
alike. This can work reasonably well. Some channels/servers tend to
attract a more sophisticated brand of participant (those associated
with Telecomix often have their relatively mild and productive
environments attributed to the groups largely Swedish constituency,
although some of it certainly has to do with the organizations
relatively straightforward work and low profile), and can more easily
provide for the stable and productive environment thats necessary for
progress. But many, including several with sufficient name recognition
to continue serving as first destinations for some substantial portion
of prospective activists, have de-evolved into environments that cant
help but turn off many of the same people who would be most effective
in activist work, while also slowly disenchanting past participants.
Certainly some servers are worse than others, and participants will
always have a choice among them, but few are free of considerable
inefficiencies and even risks stemming from the central aspect of
IRC-based activism - that anyone can join the channels within which
the often considerable affairs of activism are usually conceived and
conducted. There are rare exceptions - channels used by a small group
of server administrators and their friends to discuss server policy,
or for activities intended to be private/covert. For the most part,
and for the bulk of the channels that serve as the operational grounds
for projects that rise and fall based on the focus of those involved,
the character of the proceedings is determined haphazardly, and in
part by what sort of people choose to show up in addition to that sort
which is both intent on working and suited to the problems at hand.
The question of who contributes to such proceedings and who detracts
from them is often complex. Unfortunately, there are countless
individual cases in which it is not complex at all. The same social
mobility whereby IRC can bring in a large and continuous flow of
self-selecting people who have instant access to the proceedings
almost guarantees that those proceedings will be disrupted from time
to time. Even taking into account that the character of a channel can
be influenced by the nature of the operation itself as well as factors
like where and how the channel is promoted to other activists, many
channels will always be subject to the arrival and possibly long-term
stay of people who lack either the interest or ability to contribute.
The inclusion of such people is entirely without negative effect so
long as they refrain from interacting with those present in such a way
as to distract them. But just as no one knows youre a dog on the
internet, many of the dogs themselves are unaware of this fact
themselves and are therefore inclined to participate in the shared
channel space that makes up the entirety of the channels content.
Another problematic sort of user, the troll who for whatever reason
seeks to cause disruption or despair, will quite obviously be
interacting in that space quite a bit, and can reasonably hope to
paralyze entire channels with nonsense if his presence is tolerated by
the moderators - which is often the case in certain venues - or if
none or around to ban him from the channel for some period of time.
These problems, as well as a variety of more specific ones, are
especially prevalent within Anonymous, which never completely
transitioned from distributed troll army to crowd-sourced activist
collective. They have much less significance in some of the growing
number of other, less wide-reaching and more formal entities that have
also adopted IRC as their chief venue for activist undertakings. But
all of those problems and new variations on them will continue to
constitute a deleterious factor in potentially crucial undertakings so
long as they remain unaddressed - and its reasonable to predict that
they will indeed remain unaddressed for the foreseeable future.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
And here's draft of beginning of description of system itself. Don't
know if you're good to talk in the morning but if so give me a ring,
I'll be up for about six more hours.
The Schematic
The most noticeable aspect of what we refer to as the pursuant
schematic is that it is heavily visual, a consequence of its
dependence on conceptual distance between participants and the
various shapes that arise as they collectively refine their working
relationships. We represent it largely in squares, circles, and lines
connecting them. The totality of the environment, made up of every
user who joins the system and every pursuant (self-contained
affinity/work network) that forms among them, is called the plane. The
launch of this system will entail maintaining one large, public plane
on which great numbers of users will operate, although some parties
could conceivably choose to host a, er, private plane to which access
is granted only under certain conditions.
Every user who joins the public plane we may represent as a circle
upon it, adrift and unattached in a virtual world that consists of
space, other unattached circles, and formations made up of circles
and, more rarely, squares; these formations will vary wildly in
complexity and number of parts, although certain common patterns
will probably be noticeable, and those with fewer parts will have a
tendency to be similar to others, or even duplicates of them. Each
formation is a pursuant - an independent, formally organized grouping
of individuals who work together under well-defined structural
regimens and relationships that may be altered and expanded upon in
accordance with those definitions, and which may collectively engage
in similar relationships with other pursuants.
Just as each circle represents a user, a square represents the
authority by which a pursuance is operated and by which the nature of
its working relationships are provided for. Such relationships become
more complex and increase in number on an ongoing basis as circles are
added to a pursuance (visually, by way of a line connecting it to some
portion of the one in question), or as may be changed by agreement,
respectively. However the authority may be distributed in the future,
it will flow through the network from that square, which may be
thought of as the initial property of the initiator - authority
itself. A square only exists because it has been initiated by a
circle. The circle will have given it not only existence, but purpose
- the intent to accomplish some specific end, or simply to pursue a
broad one. The authority that largely defines the network may itself
be thought of as the implicit agreement of the user, and specifically
of the circle that joins a pursuant, in many cases thereby ceding a
degree of his own: that the authority exists because the goal is
considered important enough to pursue in whatever consensual
interpersonal working arrangements are deemed most likely to achieve
it.
It is also possible that the authority will never flow at all, and
such things as the bringing on of new participants down the line
from the square will be handled entirely by one person, or that just a
few people would make those determinations. For such a structure of
participants to come into existence, each will have had to agree to
join under the circumstances that define the group. Many users would
be unlikely to do so, being more inclined to join a given pursuance in
a role of relative independence or even some authority of their own.
Each of them will have a variety of such roles to consider and apply
for, in proportion to the number of what we view on the plane as lines
sticking out of some circles, or sometimes even from squares. These
are roles that are requested but not yet filled, and all of them are
visible to each circle whether or not the latter makes up part of a
pursuant - so long as they are set to be viewable by all of them, and
not just to those possessing a certain mark.
A mark is an element that a circle can create. It may merely consist
of a word or phrase or idea, or a whole paragraph or more of text, or
it might be a link to a pastebin or a website or forum or IRC channel.
It could be a picture. It may be set so that others may find it via
search, whether others may duplicate it to their own circles, that it
be viewable only to others in a pursuant, or to anyone who views the
pursuance; this observer will get some variable degree of information
about its parts and its work as decided by the pursuant and/or the
parts themselves.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David House <dhouse@mit.edu> wrote:
This looks excellent. I have a few suggestions I'll put to paper.
We need to discuss the events of the past several days; I'm passing out
after writing far too much code. Let's catch up tomorrow, anytime -
256.710.2349.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
In the meantime, I've finally gotten around to starting in earnest on
the explanatory documentation for the schematic, which I'm calling
"the pursuant system" for now. Am sending to this fellow I mentioned,
Stephen, whom I met after the panel and who afterwards asked me to
think about doing something along coincidentally similar lines; I'm
going to continue talking with him about this and determine whether or
not he may be a good option in terms of getting it off the ground most
easily. My only concern is that he wants to pursue something that
could somehow be monetized, and although I'm not opposed to such
things per se (and desperately need a new source of income anyway), I
would have to know more about how that would be approached before
deciding if it would be the right option in terms of what we're trying
to do with this (obviously any user fee would be entirely out of the
question, as he understands). At this early point, I'm thinking that
any agreement whereby we'd partner with this guy on anything with any
commercial aspect regarding the schematic would also have to include
some provision for allowing the resulting system/software to also be
used freely and independently, with no connection to whatever set up.
I'll want to get your input on this as it develops, too, and down the
line it might be good for you to have a conversation with him as well.
This is just an introduction, but I'll send the other documentation to
you as I complete it. Let me know if you have any input as it comes,
and give me a ring when you have a chance. Also, we'll probably want
to eventually produce somewhat different materials directed more
specifically at people who engage regularly and seriously in any form
of net-facilitated activism; if you have any ideas on specifics that
should be addressed in those, let me know, or feel free to write up
some material yourself if you're inclined to do so. Hope everything's
well.
Introduction to the Pursuant System
Effective, information-oriented online activism of the sort sometimes
engaged in by participants/informal groupings of Anonymous, as well as
by Telecomix and an increasing variety of other entities, has from its
beginning been organized and carried out most consistently within the
medium of internet relay chat (IRC), a format, and thus centralized
within a series of IRC networks that necessarily take on a variety of
individual characters relative to the others. Other mediums - forums,
video conferencing sites, Skype, Twitter, collaborative pads - are
also used, either in conjunction with IRC or to its exclusion, but the
format of separate chat servers in which activists work within the
confines of one or more channels dedicated to varying purposes has
been by far more central to the work and interactions of the most
active participants since online activism came into its own in 2008.
Between its historical status as the venue of choice for the
technically-inclined and its relative usability in terms of
information sharing, collaborative work, and socializing, IRCs
dominance among online activists is unlikely to be seriously
challenged within the next five years - especially since little overt
attention has been given to the fact that IRC is almost certainly not
anything close to the optimal possible medium for the specific
necessities of collaboration that have of late been shown to arise
among online activists.
Any reasonably close observer of the last few years of online activism
should be able to identify severe inefficiencies stemming from the
peculiarities of a medium that, while certainly advantageous in some
respects, was certainly not designed with online activism in mind.
Many observers have indeed done so, and some large portion of
participants will have undoubtedly noticed one or another of these
problems - and would understandably consider any alternative provided
either as a replacement or supplement. The more committed among them
would recognize that net-facilitated activism has proven its own
potential even in its infancy, and is thus too important a civic
remedy to be carried out without a good degree of regard for the
fundamentals by which it is incubated and carried out.
The purpose of the pursuant system is to provide an alternative medium
that, unlike IRC or any other now in use, is designed specifically for
the use of online activists, as determined by the specific dynamics
that provide for operational effectiveness, and with a view to
minimizing several of the factors inherent to IRC that consistently
reduce such effectiveness. It is not intended to entirely replace any
other medium in use by activists, but instead to provide a degree of
organizational functionality that currently does not exist, and which
would prove useful and desirable to the vast majority of online
activists while also encouraging some number of non-activists to
consider getting involved for the first time. Aside from all of that,
one of the two instances in which the pursuant system is to be
released will facilitate collaboration between groups - termed
pursuants within the system - at a level of overall ease and
collective functionality beyond what now exists within net-facilitated
activism and a number of more traditional enterprises as well.
The pursuant system is driven by a conceptually simple but
multifaceted and highly customizable schematic, itself originally
designed in 2010 with input from early participants of Project PM, and
then fundamentally expanded on in collaboration with information
activist David House in late 2012 in light of the developing character
and perceived future potential of online activism as made apparent
over several years and countless operations and incidents. In addition
to the functionality presented here, other tools and aspects are
likely to be added over development, and still others could be
implemented by individual users after release.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
Heh. You want to just call me on my cell when you're free instead of
setting
up appointment to talk?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2012, at 8:31 AM, David House <dhouse@MIT.EDU> wrote:
GRRRROOOAAANNNNNNNN
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
No problem, I'll be around.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:27 AM, David House <dhouse@mit.edu> wrote:
work will run over today, gotta scratch 3. ill hit you up next moment
im
free, likely tonight.
sry for the dealy
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sounds good. Also, just had a phone meeting with a guy who had
approached
me after the bloomberg panel, works for one of the aol founders,
wants
me to
help him put together something big that would incorporate the
schematic,
will tell you more tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:20 AM, David House <dhouse@MIT.EDU> wrote:
I'm making up for lost time (girlfriend) from this weekend today;
tomorrow
afternoon should work. 3pm?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Barrett Brown
<barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey, I guess we both got busy, want to skype later this week
sometime?
I don't have a schedule right now, so any time should be good for
me.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM, David House <dhouse@mit.edu>
wrote:
Roger that.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Barrett Brown
<barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
No problem, I ended up being busy too. Will be available to
Skype
Sunday, just send me an e-mail a bit before you're ready.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM, David House <dhouse@mit.edu>
wrote:
Hey Barrett,
Sorry for the delay -- been slammed at work. I'm looking at a
few
spaces
this weekend. Want to skype on Sunday afternoon?
David
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
