AIR
AIR
Asymmetric Internet Relationships
Embedded Files
So, what are we?
You and I are in a relationship of sorts: You read the words I write, and I write with you in mind, and that circle of action and effect between two entities is a relationship.
Under such a broad definition of relationship, are we also in relationship with a butterfly in the Amazon rainforest? Well, sure, but the strength and nature of that relationship is not the same:
The butterfly can flutter in many ways but cannot decide its random effect upon our weather, nor can we attribute our weather to this particular butterfly.
Although you and I could refrain from ordering from (the) Amazon, we would struggle to turn the 8-billion-strong tides of climate change and save the poor butterfly.
That relationship is weak because the mutual effects are dilute and because neither party picks actions with the other in mind. In contrast, conversation has evolved expressly for two parties to intentionally, directly, and efficiently affect each other’s mental/emotional states. Yet, unless the two parties are 100% identical, every relationship is born dented into asymmetry.
Our Internet relationship is further skewed:
One-to-many: A blog is akin to an in-person speech with audience mics available at the end. Note that online, this audience is numerically and temporally unbounded, and rarely do in-person speeches of the largest sizes allow for audience comments. Though the speaker’s words hold more power initially, the audience’s collective rate of action might overrun the speaker.
Anonymity: We all carry our pasts and personas, which other people use to inform their interactions with us. While certain online actors (like me) wish to build such a history and to be reliably discoverable, others will gladly leverage the ease of abandoning/creating new accounts to gain perpetual anonymity. This special action evades future repercussions of past wrongs.
If asymmetries are inherent, are these specific action asymmetries bad? Certainly, both characteristics can be viewed as attractive features of the Internet:
One-to-many: Being among the “many”, it’s easy to access many “ones” and to filter to desirable content. More better actions!
Anonymity: People may wish to discard their identities to access new spaces or to shed inequities from their place in life. More equal actions!
I could further question these “attractive features”, but we can already observe the emergence of counter-measures against these asymmetries:
One-to-many: Platforms may rate limit, moderate, or disable comments.
Anonymity: Some attempt to weed out trolls and bot accounts with limited or questionable histories, and various forms of account verification have emerged.
Without these extra efforts, the virtual ecosystems become unsustainable (more than they already are).
Entire theses and careers have been built on the study of virtual ecosystems, so I’ll pause here and leave some threads to pull on later:
What’s the connection between “unsustainable” and “bad”? Are they synonyms, correlated, necessary but not sufficient, sufficient but not necessary, …?
What’s the path towards sustainable and/or good virtual ecosystems? What are the roles of the scaffolders of virtual spaces, centralized regulation, and decentralized incentives?
Circling back to Us, it sounds like I fear an online mob, which is silly. The present situation could be described as “one-to-zero” and “me being stealthily anonymous in my bedroom”. This is a tiny blog for self-learning, and I have a lot to learn from being told I’m wrong.
Not sure if/when I’d figure out comments, but my inbox is open at linebreakblog@gmail.com!
To a healthier relationship 🥂
Google Sites
Report abuse