Tim gives some advice that we're not yet following, but that I would like to incorporate into the site. First, he recommends "supporting lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems." Second, one should "Think syndication, not coordination,” while third, one should "Design for 'hackability' and remixability.”
It's possible I'm missing something, but all three of these points seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. Our code should be free. If this is the goal, then the next consideration is what parts of our code will have “some rights reserved.”
The answer isn't clear to me. What if our entire code was made available? What would happen? Ideally we could develop a community of programmers interested in improving our system and ensuring that everything is as functional and user friendly as possible. This seems like it would be a useful outcome, but I imagine there would be a way to structure this so as to have a much bigger impact on democracy.
What if we started building open source website for towns, cities, counties and school boards? These website are famously terrible. If we just created a few open source websites that cities and towns could use for free, we might also be able to create a place for developers to try their hand at developing and improving similar types of sites. In the same way that Wordpress helps anyone start a good-looking blog, Democracy Works could help municipal government set up well-designed websites.
If we did this, we could build in the requirement that all of these sites include a TurboVote widgit on the outside so that voters could easily sign up for text message and email reminders of election dates and deadlines. On the inside administrative part of the site we could create standardized fields for county or town election clerks to enter election information. Doing this could simultaneously help them keep more organized data, help TurboVote be more certain about dates and deadlines, and finally help realize Democracy Works' dream of having all election information easily accessible in machine readable format.
This all sounds like such a wonderful end result that I'm a little suspicious of it. I feel compelled to pull this analysis through the lens of Jaron Lanier and see if it can be improved.
Jaron's premise in "You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto" is that machines are getting better and better at doing almost everything. So good, in fact, that we are quickly approaching a day when the only thing humans will be able to do better than machines is be creative, or as Jaron puts it, "sell each other our hopes and dreams."
He believes that the current architecture of the internet, where files can be copied an infinite number of times, forces creative people to give away their creations for free. This becomes a more urgent problem the further we move into a future where creativity is the only thing humans can do better than machines. If we don't change the architecture of the internet, we will live in a future where all are forced into poverty and only those close to "The Server" (Zuck, Brin, Page, their VCs, etc) will have money and power.
Jaron believes that if the future is a Bazaar, then it is a bazaar full of powerless serfs. It is a bazaar in borrowed space at the foot of the server.
If Democracy Works architects a system where developers and designers create free open source websites for local governments, then we are part of the problem. Perhaps the better solution is to charge local governments for the use of each open source website and to give all of the proceeds to the developers who built them. Like E-bay we could let developers choose how much they want to charge for the use of their creation. The question is whether this is sustainable as long as we live in a world where copies are just a click away.
No comments:
Post a Comment