Symbsys 209

9 responses so far ↓

• 1    gnewman // Oct 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm

  Benkler’s next two chapters expand on how and why non-market peer production and sharing has worked so far, and then how businesses have successfully created a symbiotic relationship with these-productions to create a market for themselves. I found these two chapters interesting, and yet my difficulties with Benkler remains: he is asking for a general shift in our mindset for these new networked productions, but the examples he shows are successful non-market production with our current model. Most importantly, I am interested in the policy decisions are government has enacted that have come to hinder this new market. He makes claims about detrimental decisions for “spectrum management” and “intellectual property”, but I would have hoped that he would directly link these negative effects to the same peer-to-peer productions that he has championed. Essentially, I am worried that Benkler is trying to establish proof that non-market production can compete with market production, and then show that there are policies that are hindering non-market production, but can not correlate the two. For it seems that as Benkler mentions non-market production is of a very specific type, since it depends on people to work on them in their free time. Thus, I think you can easily argue that only certain types of non-market production can thrive while others are simply not viable, or worse yet he has not proven to me that there is some truth that non-market production can be detrimental to legitimate market of “passive goods”.

  I find it troubling that Benkler has praised the postive aspects of peer-to-peer networks like Napster and KaZaA because he seems to blantly ignore the ethical and economical problems that these sharing networks provide. He is correct in asserting that there is something amazing with the “sheer effectiveness of large-scale colloaboration”. However, he must realize that these networks are used to share “industrial passive goods” like movies and music. They are a popular way for young people like myself to “share” a product that many people had worked on at their day job, and we are certainly cutting into the value that these products are having. How can Benkler reconcile this fact with his general praise of peer-to-peer networks, for surely he must know that this sharing is really not an active feat, but rather a way to copy passive goods.

  Now, I am not attempting to be too harsh on Benkler when it comes to the sharing of music, since the music industry needed this type of change. There is no reason that an albums should cost nearly as much as the record companies tries to make it, and now artists are giving away their music in order to make money through touring. (ONe can see examples in Prince and Radiohead, and it looks like Oasis and Jamiroquai will follow step). However, similar media passive goods can easily be shared through the internet and it seems like these type of sharing can certainly have a negative effect on how they are made. One can look at the film industry as a clear example, since it is not like the film industry can give their movies away for free and than try to tour their movie around the country. One might say that film industries can rely that people will want to come to theaters to watch their films, but with the ever changing technology for the “home theater”, I am not so sure that will be the case for much longer. If so, than this networked sharing could have a dramatic effect on the film industry and not in a positive way. Is there anyway that films can protect their copyrights in the new era? Is there attempt to do so unethical in Benkler’s mind?

• 2    jarobb3 // Oct 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm

  Before I begin what will probably turn out to be little more than a rant, I want to clarify my views: I believe whole-heartedly in capitalism as the best way to develop and exchange goods and services. I do wish we could rely on individual generosity rather than the government to ensure opportunity and a decent quality of life for all, but that is not the case.

  The beautiful irony for which our generation has a front seat is that capitalism has created a means of non-market production in the distribution of information and exchange that seemingly threatens the security of the corresponding market system.

  A laissez-faire market system, as I understand it, is strictly Darwinian. Resources are limited, and survival is what is at stake. Forces to counter-balance the “it’s either us or them” mentality are few, and companies survive by adapting to the changing winds of the marketplace. Those that cannot or will not become extinct. Pure capitalism is savage, but elegant in its simplicity.

  For all of the whining that major corporations do regarding regulations to protect the environment, animals, and human beings, their relentless pursuit of government protections against the frighteningly instant and overwhelming power of peer production and sharing is, in my opinion, pitiful. Even more pitiful is their use of their resources to harvest the sympathy of those who are in line to gain from this new power.

  As if sympathy ever had a place in American capitalism.

  Benkler’s greatest contribution to this debate in the chapters that we have read is his commitment to demonstrating how enterprises within the Networked Information Economy use human intelligence and creativity more efficiently in the production of information than those of a previous age. What I think Benkler does poorly is to emphasize that open-source development, peer production, sharing, etc. are not foreign viruses invading our capitalist world but are the very products of the free-market system itself. This is not a battle between American capitalism and the Networked Information Economy; this is a battle between two eras of American capitalism.

  What do we say to radio manufacturers who saw profits fall after the introduction of the TV? “Tough Luck. Should’ve gotten into the TV game.” We should ask ourselves why we are allowing the same people who put the radio people on the streets dress themselves in the armor of federal protections. We should be telling them to adapt like true capitalists and get into the TV game.

• 3    dreadpirateroberts // Oct 9, 2007 at 5:29 pm

  (This is Evan, I refuse to have a boring handle after the uniblog was fussy)

  I pleasantly pleased with chapters 3 and 4 after being thoroughly annoyed at the broad strokes with which the first two chapters painted the situation.

  At last the Joe Einsteins are admitted to be people who do their “free” stuff in their spare time for fun. At last it is admitted that the only way that free software can even exist is because our society is rich enough that enough people have the resources available to them that renders this exchange capable of taking place without payment being an okay thing.

  As much as I was cheering the dissecting of slashdot and the study of Google, I found myself turned off at the sudden, string uses of really political language. Free information (whether in the form of songs or e-books) is essential to our liberties and freedom? Really? I seem to recall being able to function without a PDF of Jane Eyre prior to reading this text.

  I was also turned off by the absolute wikipedia worship. I understand that it is a very prominent example that worked well but really. Some other examples would be great!

  Much as I enjoyed the expansion of explanation with all the examples I remain annoyed at the anecdotal examples and unwillingness to delve into negative examples.

  Strength of an argument should not be affected by a few outliers, but rather should be able to be explained away, adding more to the overall picture.

  Right now the positive examples still seem to be some extraordinary successes, not the only way it will be in a New World-Wide-Web Order.

• 4    johnmagdaleno // Oct 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

  This week’s chapters expanded on the basic concepts of the economics of information production to the qualities and reasons of peer-based information production and review and the economic impacts of the social production system. Benkler makes many good arguments as to how and why peer networks enabled by the Internet provide effective mechanisms for producing useful information:

  (1) Individuals self-select which tasks they want to perform based on their own perceived skill and desires. This means individuals will work on things of interest to them, and presumably spend more time and do a better job at these tasks as opposed to those tasks assigned at work (for monetary gain).
  (2) Effective peer production systems use social interaction methods and norms to review and encourage participants to contribute meaningfully;
  (3) The organization of tasks related to some product intended for peer-production directly impacts an individual’s ability to participate. What is of interest to me on this point is how well peer production systems generally do at meaningfully self-organizing for successful product.
  (4) Lastly, social systems that produce information do not necessarily displace commercial efforts, and more importantly what is interesting is how commercial organizations can more effectively leverage products of the peer-production networks.

  This last point is of most interest to me and therefore I will spend the rest of my blog commenting on it.

  One of the challenges facing commercial organizations is that most business managers look at peer-produced information in an overly simplistic way, especially open source software:
  (1) It’s free and therefore we should use it;
  (2) It’s free so we should not trust it;
  (3) It’s free so it does not apply to our business.

  The first two points reflect two opposing, and equally naïve views that open source is monetarily free. It is not. In fact the costs related to acquiring, implementing and modifying open software in many cases exceed the costs for commercial alternatives. The cost of maintenance related to a system implementation commonly accounts for 80% of the total cost of ownership of the system (as opposed to 20% for the up front cost of acquisition and implementation). Maintenance related to customizations and system support account for the majority of the maintenance costs. The point is this: because we can produce software in an open environment and make it readily available to others to use does not mean that the software meets anyone’s specific needs, or specifically does not meet their needs adequately. Therefore, we need to allow the consumers of these systems to select and reward those who are the best in terms of quality, applicability and cost.

  In terms of trust, some of this is irrational, but some of it is rational. Take Open Workbench from Clarity (originally NIKU). This was an enterprise project management tool that was released into the public domain by NIKU to encourage corporate project managers to adopt it in lieu of Microsoft Project. NIKU assigned a dedicated development staff, encouraged outside development, and created an public forum to discuss issues and future enhancements to the product. Because of the relative maturity of OWB, there were many users who adopted it. However, if you read the message boards now, you will note that it is essentially abandoned, leaving a wake of frustrated users who made the mistake of counting on its existences. The cost of this abandonment can be huge, organizational training materials, processes, training time of employees are either useless or require significant modification in order to move to another tool.

  In every case, we have to carefully evaluate our options, free, commercial or the option to do nothing. I think the more options we have, the better it is for us, as consumers.

  Finally, I want to conclude my post with a question:

  If we accept Benkler’s economical analysis of the production information through social networks, does the fact that the marginal cost of producing a copy of the information being zero mean that the producer does not have the right to gain economically from his or her invention, creativeness and work?

  I hope that subsequent chapters will potentially address this question from all sides of the debates to that we can meaningfully evaluate the trade-offs of society’s claim to information as a public good.

• 5    clizzin // Oct 9, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  In general, I like Benkler’s approach to analyzing peer production and sharing in these two chapters. However, I have some gripes about his unqualified admiration of a few specific systems, and I explain my reasons for these gripes, with explanations for what these problems indicate for all peer-driven production of information.

  1.
  I think Benkler’s differentiation between monetary and social motivations/obligations is right on the money, and has great explanatory power for the phenomenon of open source software projects and peer information sharing. However, when it comes to ethics, I think it’s a trickier challenge to say that information ought to be treated as a nonmarket entity. Sure, monetary motivations may stimulate many programmers, but is it fair to say that the only sort of reward they should receive for their efforts must be strictly social? Bill Gates’ 1976 “Open Letter to Hobbyists”, though often ridiculed, offers some relevant arguments on this issue; Gates’ arguments about feasibility of software production don’t make much sense in the light of the developments that Benkler discusses, but insofar as a programmer *wishes* to make a living from software production, it seems that he/she should be able to retain that option, if not from the perspective of the information economy, then at least from a social expectation that one can make a living from one’s efforts at creative production. I’d like to discuss the feasibility of a legal system that places software production (if not all information production) in a nonmarket sector, and whether such a system would be more desirable or economically efficient than our current system (in which individual actors opt in for voluntary sharing).

  2.
  Benkler’s unqualified praise of Wikipedia and Slashdot is a little irritating, given the fact that there are quite a few problems with the qualities in each that he praises. Specifically:
  a. Wikipedia
  i. Benkler sees it as a great wonder that Wikipedia editing is guided by a set of rules derived from social norms, but this quality is precisely one of the major problems with the site. Because Wikipedia users mostly belong to a rich white male demographic (this demographic is uniquely placed to have access to and interest in the technological background that bolsters Wikipedia), the information contained on the site will be systematically skewed towards their perspectives. One prominent example of such bias appears in the article for jazz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz), which attempts to present jazz in a ‘colour-blind’ light, avoiding mention of the genre’s African roots and even, at one point, including a list of ‘all-white and Jewish’ bandleaders in the 1920s. Indeed, this is a bit of a problem for the entire project of determining relevance and credibility via peer determination. Even in for Google’s PageRank algorithm, which exploits the most basic form of accreditation on the Internet, the links examined exist in a framework where the authors’ social norms influence their choice of resources, pages, and sites to deem worthy of reading. As a result, thoughts, theories, and perspectives from the margins of socially acceptability are likely to be deemed uncredible or irrelevant in the peer information production system that Benkler describes, and discarded as a result. (For more on the issue of systemic bias in Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)
  ii. The example of the Britannica editor assisting Wikipedia is of the sort that Wikipedia aficionados always pull out whenever they’re defending Wikipedia; however, this example does not deny the fact that Wikipedia’s unstability inherently makes it an untrustworthy resource. When one visits Wikipedia, there is absolutely no guarantee that the current revision is accurate and trustworthy. Benkler seems to lean towards the philosophy that it’s the user’s responsibility to check out the information for him or herself, but that completely denies his argument that peer information production networks can deliver his twin pet criteria of relevance and credibility. Even if users held responsibility for discerning the accuracy of information, it would be difficult to do so on Wikipedia due to the sheer number of revisions present. It would be much more efficient to have a single source with information authorized by people with expertise.
  b. Slashdot
  Benkler seems to fawn all over Slashdot’s ranking/filtering/moderation system for news content and comments, but one of the more prevalent opinions of Slashdot today is that its content sucks, and is further driven down by the proliferation of dumb comments that are difficult to prevent and inefficently moderated. Another system for content moderation that I think is both more interesting and promising is MetaFilter’s approach, in which the value of users and content is determined in the same way it is in real life — through the gradual construction of a reputation through social examination of users’ previous comments. This also seems to be the model used for most forums, in which only guidelines are provided, and users who consistently violate the guidelines are mocked and shunned by the community. I’d like to talk more in class about alternate ideas for preventing crap content in peer-driven information systems, as well as alternate criteria for evaluating content, besides relevance and credibility.

• 6    benkr // Oct 9, 2007 at 5:58 pm

  In chapter 4, Benkler spends some time outlining non-market motivations for which people perform activities. A narrow focus on only the market motivations has led us to where they are today. Legislators try to force nonrivalrous information into the realm of tradeable goods, where it doesn’t quite belong and where it leads to inefficiencies, because they figure that without capital gain as an incentive, production will cease. This failure to adapt to changing modalities of production led me to daydream an interesting hypothetical:

  Suppose, in the future, we develop the technology of matter duplication. Duplicator tubes will allow us to insert an apple into the input tube, press a button, and remove the original apple from the tube, as well as a second apple from the output tube. Apples (as well as everything preexisting and tangible in the universe) are now a nonrivalrous good. Do we rejoice at solving world hunger? Or do we outlaw the duplicators, because apple producers everywhere are deprived of their livelihood? Presumably not the latter, because merchants no longer need income from selling goods — they could just duplicate any item they want and have it for free. In this circumstance, there is no longer a market motivation for ANYTHING. All needs which formerly could be filled by acquiring enough money to purchase an item can now be filled by duplicating it.

  In this circumstance, what remains our motivation for living? Does the lack of economic rewards for any action mean all actions are purposeless, and life meaningless? As we can see from the non-market-motivated activities Benkler discusses in chapters 3 and 4, we’d still have something to live for, even if the paradigm has shifted dramatically.

  Think of the reasons for which someone may make a valuable contribution to a Wikipedia article, or become part of the SETI program. He expects no monetary reward, but enjoys the sensation of contributing to such a worthwhile endeavor, and when the endeavor is successful, he shares in some of the glory. Or, think of why there are hundreds of groups on Facebook trying to become the largest, or reach over 100,000 people. The creator of that group just wanted the bragging rights of having started something that impacted 100,000 people.

  People stuck in the old market paradigm fear that if the music business is less profitable, nobody will enter it. As we can see from the zillions of musical groups on MySpace clamoring for recognition, this is not the case. Most of these people are not trying to launch a career — they are making music because they enjoy it. Or think of Second Life, where in many aspects, we have something very similar to the matter-duplication scenario I’ve outlined. Though the items people create in the game can be copied, and this lowers their potential to be sold for Linden dollars, people continue to produce items because they like that they have impacted the game.

  I can imagine a utopian society forming if matter duplication ever became possible, because when Benkler’s social capital becomes the only capital we have, the friendliest, most goodhearted people will be recognized as the most successful, as that is the only way to measure success that we’ll have.

• 7    fwy08 // Oct 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  In chapters 3 and 4, Benkler was able to break down peer production, sharing and the economics of social production demonstrating his numerous insights on the topic, but in my opinion, he did not do a great job of answering “so what?”

  No matter how clearly he wants to lay down the could’s and can’s of such an alternative non-market production system, it is evident that he has skirted over some of the most important questions that would bring the proposed system to fruition. If these more efficient non-market non-proprietary production systems supposed to replace current market job providing, is there a proposal for how the participation/production of individuals can be exchanged for rival goods like food or shelter? Benkler came close to admitting this blurry problem when he mentioned that the:

  “lack of crisp specification of who is giving what to whom, and in exchange for what, also bears on the comparative transaction costs associated with the allocation of the second major type of scarce resource in the networked information economy: the physical resources…”

  Or, is this one of the natural constraints on such non-market social production systems? And if so, doesn’t this simply imply that if such a system will more efficiently produce some information good in through the material excess and motivation he described, then it will happen? If his purpose in trying to demonstrate that these such systems can be more efficient so that the government will not impose laws preventing such systems from being, then Benkler has veered to far off his thesis.

  It’s nice that he can describe the circumstances necessary for such a system to be, but I’d like to see more discussion about really putting such a system in practice (not just descriptions of existing examples.)

• 8    benkr // Oct 9, 2007 at 10:02 pm

  addendum to my post: other social measures of success in this utopia would be things like “most creative,” “most knowledgeable,” and “wittiest,” among others. What you wouldn’t have are phenomena like boy bands, who rose to prominence only because of the existence of mass media, or DeBeers, which became successful through creating scarcity.

• 9    dulcinea // Oct 10, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  (It’s Jessica, by the way. I chose Dulcinea because I hope that my posts—and the class in general—inspires others to tilt.)

  I want to do two things in this post: 1) respond to Benkler’s presentation and 2) Respond to jarrob3’s points. I’ll take the second first.

  At the risk of sounding too stereotypically libertarian, I would like to address the view that capitalism is full of evil, dog-eat-dog, brutish, selfish people and that government is full of happy, idealistic, selfless ones. I do not have any indication that this is true. I think this is a false characterization: capitalism has created a huge explosion of value that the world had not before seen, while also not solving every problem humans have; and government has an important role to play in society; yet is not, at root, *productive* of anything.

  I believe that this dichotomy is false. Both of these institutions (the modern corporation and the modern government) are being undermined by new developments in information technology, and both will have their paradigms forcefully shifted. That is where our discussion should focus.

  I would like to address some of the other points:

  “I do wish we could rely on individual generosity rather than the government to ensure opportunity and a decent quality of life for all, but that is not the case.” This assumes that we can rely upon the government for these things. What does the government *produce*?

  “A laissez-faire market system, as I understand it, is strictly Darwinian. Resources are limited, and survival is what is at stake.” I would argue that capitalism is the world’s greatest positive sum game. Capitalism, at root, is about accumulating capital by meeting the needs of others. It’s about *creating something*—through innovation, organization, and financing. It’s not about hurting someone else in a Hobbesian world. It’s about using others’ self-interest to promote your own in a Smithean one.

  As Benkler points out, economics as it currently stands leaves out important parts of human nature and economic policy supports existing corporate structures. Both of these are problems in economic theory and practice. They do not appear to be problems in capitalism itself.

  I agree with jarrob3’s perspective that “this is not a battle between American capitalism and the Networked Information Economy; this is a battle between two eras of American capitalism.” I think that Benkler, were he to think about it, would as well.

  To respond to Benkler:

  *** CS 377W Developing Facebook Applications ***

  I’m involved in a Facebook apps development course this quarter and Benkler has got me thinking about what motivates the student developers in the course and the apps developers in particular. Are they Joe Einsteins? Are they looking for a win in the prize economy of jobs and start-up acquisitions? And are their motivations similar to those of Wikipedia contributors? Benkler mentions in Chapter 4 (I don’t have the page numbers on my copy) that: “Children and teenagers, retirees, and very rich individuals can spend most of their lives socializing or volunteering; most other people cannot.” I appreciate his perspective that information technology has it easier for all of us to leverage our free time and be “retired” in this sense, at least some of the time.

  *** Uttering Content ***

  I also want to provide an example of another system similar to NASA’s clickworkers (Chapter 3), Wikipedia, and Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk). One of this year’s MIT TR35 Innovation Awards went to Luis von Ahn, who is using captchas to clear up scanning issues in OCR (http://www.technologyreview.com/tr35/Profile.aspx?Cand=T&TRID=631).

  *** Benkler’s Economic Arguments ***

  I know that we’ve all been bashing Benkler for his economic perspective (or, at least, I have), but I’d like to commend him for his flexibility in using economic tools to examine new phenomena. His analysis of “fine-grained, medium-grained, and large-grained” lumpy goods is a very strong application of economic classifications to new kinds of goods.

You must log in to post a comment.