I spent some time this morning searching for references that might generally discuss the corruption or manipulation of feedback systems, since that's where I think the authority of modern western economic and political systems arises. In a nutshell, it seems increasingly obvious to me that in a freely evolving system, as some organizations grow large enough, it is inevitable and natural that they will grow powerful enough to manipulate the information in the feedback look -- if no one stops them for reasons of ethics -- which corrupts the feedback system as a source of authority. One of the surprises when I searched on "manipulating" and "feedback" was finding a bunch of reputation-based systems that have warnings to their users prohibiting attempts to manipulate the site's feedback system by creating multiple identities and using them to boost their ratings. Schilling for themselves, in other words. I'd like to try to push this argument even further, by adding the idea of co-evolution. Above, I suggested that some organizations might grow large enough to manipulate the feedback that is supposed to regulate them. Co-evolution suggests that symbiosis between and among such large organizations might also evolve, in which they essentially manipulate each other's feedback to their mutual advantage over the rest of the system. One of the areas in which I am most familiar with is the mainstream computer trade press, where I think such a symbiosis has evolved, to the detriment of customers. Essentially, they promote one another's cause by suppressing negative information. The trade press promotes technology overall, even though there are occasional negative reviews coverage. The industry limits access to sample products and interviews with company executives to the friendliest publications. This mutual back-scratching isn't quite as bad as the stories one hears about Hollywood and the entertainment press, but it's darn close. Intuition screams at me that it would not be hard to find that similar symbiotic relationships have evolved anywhere a handful of big organization domination a marketplace -- politics, insurance, pharmaceuticals and so forth. Unconsciously, they are collaborating, even though it's pretty hard to nail down specific instances. Nevertheless, the outcome is consolidation of power in fewer and fewer organizations, which unconsciously (mostly) evolve greater power as they acquire institutional behaviors that increasingly suppress information that is not in their mutual self-interest, which is the feedback loop manipulation I'm talking about. Now, I know that some of you will ask what I suggest to solve this problem. And I'm scratching my head, wondering where the world is heading. In a sense, I believe the solution is already in front of us -- the Internet, simply because it makes suppression of information so much harder. Perhaps all we need do is fight to ensure that it remains free. But as I look at how big media uses copyright to prevent free information flow, I find myself increasingly supportive of Napster and other collaborative distribution systems. Yes, creators of intellectual property need to be paid (I'd be a hypocrite to argue otherwise). But perhaps we need more compulsory licensing, meaning that everyone has the right to distribute intellectual property, ending anyone's ability to use copyright law to halt information flow. Of course, compulsory licenses require payment mechanisms. The BMI/ASCAP clearinghouse model has worked for music; perhaps that kind of standard needs to be broadened and generalized. Any law that restricts people from taking advantage of the Internet's inexpensive distribution of ideas should be questioned deeply, I think. Let's say that we Brinellers decide that we're going to set up our own news recommender system -- I tend to think we should be able to do that with Internet content without having to seek a license for every source on the net. That's the idea behind clearinghouses. Nick Arnett Direct phone: 408-733-7613 Fax: 408-904-7198
