World 2.0: Twitter Governance [Conditions of Possibility]

What makes technologically mediated social interactions different? What are the conditions of possibility of networked governance?

The Technology Principle: Network Society is mediated through technology. Corollaries:

  • The Path Dependency Principle: Path dependency makes it costly for us to exercise choice and leave any given network.
  • The Scale and Network Effects Principle: Network effects are the glue of network society.
  • The Critical Mass Principle: Some things only work when a critical mass is present.
  • The Modularity Principle: Modularity allows complexity by combining simple parts.
  • The Granularity Principle: The smaller the useful contribution, the easier the scalability.

The Social Principle: Any network participant chooses to participate or to leave at any point in time. Corollaries:

  • The Consensus Principle: Decisions in choice-communities are made by consensus (not unanimity…and forking is allowed)‏.
  • The Outcome Legitimacy Principle: The legitimacy of a policy that aims to create public value is derived from the public value created (as defined by its stakeholders choice to stay-or-leave).
  • ‏The Peer Collaboration Principle: Commons are produced by peers, for peers.
  • The Transparency Principle: Transparency takes the role of democracy as the standard which any governance situation is evaluated against, this necessitates documentation (transparency through time).
  • The Reflexivity Principle: any decision-making situation can be reflected at all times (this is what Beth Noveck calls visual deliberation).

Anything I am missing? What types of governance does such a world allow? What are the limits and possibilities of networked governance?


Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

blog comments powered by Disqus