3 ms·
The tragedy of the commons is another explanation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
by MichaelMoser123 8y ago
The tragedy of the commons is another explanation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons you have a common playground where some players start to spam the mailing list/newsgroup/discussion board for their own benefit, this destroys the commons as more spammers join in. Eventually you need moderators and centralisation, now the policeman tends to have an agenda of his own - and the common ground has been appropriated. Where is the new element in that? Self regulation works in small groups but it all breaks down when the group is larger than a village.
- syshum 8y agoCentralisation is the problem on the internet today, not a solution. What we need is MASSIVE decentralization, and open protocols,.
- natmaka 8y agoIndeed. Moreover whenever something is wrong, something is too big, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr#Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr#Philosophy.
- u801e 8y ago> some players start to spam the mailing list/newsgroup/discussion board for their own benefit, this destroys the commons as more spammers join in. Eventually you need moderators and centralisation, Mail and news clients have sophisticated filtering abilities that could deal with that issue. I've always wondered why people in general are more than willing to rely in a central party to vet the content they get to see rather than handling it for themselves.