Stephen-
For now, here are two more, still-incomplete section drafts that will
nonetheless go a long way towards explaining the utility of the
network. Both are about a couple of paragraphs shy of being finished;
the most notable thing that's missing thus far, in the section on the
schematic itself, is a description of how participants or groups
thereof can "break off" from their current group, or "pursuance," and
join another one via mutual agreement, and in a number of different
choices of working relationships and levels of "self-determination."
It's a pretty important aspect of this for the activist audience, and
will be explained partly in a second chart I'll complete this weekend.
In addition to these sections, I except that the documentation will
also need at least one more section explaining some of the dynamics of
net activism and whatnot, which I'll certainly have completed and
ready for you to look at before the 20th. Also attached is a chart
referenced in the schematic section pasted below.
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 not untoward to conclude
from the general situation as it exists that they will indeed remain
unaddressed.
The Schematic
The most noticeable aspect of what we refer to as the pursuance
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 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...
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Veith <sveith@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Barrett,
Good to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have been inundated with work and personal.
I will be out on break starting tomorrow. I will be taking everything that you have sent to me along with me to review.
I promise to get back to you with some initial thoughts and ideas on things the week of the 20th when I return.
Thanks again and take care.
Best
Steve
Sent from my iPhone - Please excuse typos
On Aug 7, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen-
After a couple more unexpected pieces of work, I've finally begun
writing up the materials on the "pursuant system," as I'm calling it
for now, and will be sending you those as I finish them. The
introduction I've pasted below doesn't get into explaining exactly how
it works, but instead provides an overview, directed both at online
activists and non-activists, of what fundamental problems the
schematic will solve and what other value it should be expected to
offer to whom. Specifics on the design itself will require me to
finish up some charts along with appropriate text so will take a few
days still; I'll also be sending along sections dealing in greater
detail with the negative aspects of the existing activist environment
that the system is designed to minimize, and likely one or two more on
related topics. Expect it all within the next week or so, and do let
me know if you have any initial questions about any of it. Still very
excited about pursuing this and look forward to our next discussion.
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
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302