[governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions)

[Tim Davies]

Aldo,

This is an interesting debate. I was trying to compose a response in
blog-post form - but will instead opt for the moment for some responses
in-line below.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Aldo Matteucci <aldo.matteucci at gmail.com>wrote:

> *Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online
> communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that
> short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth
> limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage
> to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion.*
>
> *Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it
> should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on
> the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, *
>
> **
>

Ginger and Ricardo point to one of the properties of short communication
that can be very valuable in online dialogues - it can scale to involve a
larger number of participants who each get to offer some input. It's hard
to hold a deep dialogue with a lot of people (note Plato's dialogues rarely
have a large crowd of characters), whereas the shorter form communication
enabled by small comment boxes can support more people to be part of a
conversation in a short time.

As Ginger and Ricardo alude to - this can lead to a chaotic conversations,
or a cacophony of voices - or to some voices still dominating the
discussion. There are two complementary responses I think to this: one is
active (open) facilitation of a dialogue when there are a large number of
people taking part; the second is in having good platforms that help
everyone make short comments in semi-structured ways, weaving
twitter-length contributions collaboratively into a larger whole.


> I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which I
> invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above):
> yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion.
>
> Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter
> format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a
> dialogue – which is to deliberate.
>

It can be useful to distinguish between the twitter format with a
time-limit, twitter-length communication over time, and communication on
twitter.

Putting an arbitrary limit of 140 characters on input into a short
synchronous online dialogue does seem likely to shape the discussion
towards short assertions, rather than expression of more deliberative and
complex ideas - certainly unless the community develop shorthands to fit
their communication within the limit.

However, when communication is extended over time, as it is in many twitter
conversations, which are asychronous, then a lot of deliberation and nuance
can start to be incorporated. Scholars of Computer Mediated Communication
have looked at how, with reduced cues from non-verbal interactions people
over time compensate and find ways to pick up meaning not only from the
content of a message, but also the timing, sequencing and other signals.
Twitter itself creates some very nuanced social conventions, of reference
to issues with hash-tags, people with @'s and so-on. Conversations can take
place on a slow-burn over weeks and months on Twitter itself, enabling
interesting forms of deliberation.


> Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very
> noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is
> irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the
> future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them
> ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a
> revolution?
>
> Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree)
> even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the
> discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they
> agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite.
>

Not necessarily. We may have been aware that a detailed reply takes time.
Quick vote-style replies can move a dialogue on, and then the reply to
those can draw other people in...

> Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and
> replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message.
> Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text.
>

Not if you leave it in Tweet-form in the book. Take Plato's dialogues and
tweet them over time, interacting with those who reply, and building a
dialogue through interaction - now you have changed, and for some of the
audience, improved the text.

There will be those who get to engage with the ideas for the first time
seeing them in short form. For some the short-form will crystalise things
they had already read, for others, it will act as a teaser - encouraging
them to look at the longer and more in-depth form.

Twitter-like communication is one layer of dialogue. Different layers
engage different people at different times - our challenge
in facilitating dialogue is to link these layers if we can.


> My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know
> that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and
> to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual)
> hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically
> inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we
> ascribe the outcome to a superior person.
>

This is a really interesting observation - and I think somewhere where we
have to keep a watchful eye on how Twitter-like communications impact
people. Any digital conversation can now make a choice over whether or not
a permanent record of the dialogue will be held - or whether only the
outcome will be recorded and enter into the public sphere.

Negotiating whether or not the dialogue should be on or off-record again is
a facilitation and community choice that should be consciously made. Some
people value the ability to look back on the record to see how their views
have changed (e.g. in working with young people, the ability to look back
over their online traces and see how they have developed as an individual
can be very valuable); for others, the record might create the risk of
attributing the outcomes to an individual rather than the collective, or
might limit the positions someone can take in the future because of their
past expressions.


> Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote –
> democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It
> comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a deliberation:
> the common reflection and input from various points of view. The
> intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive.
>

I'm not sure this is true. Each of the above 'vote' like statements also
offered some reasons. In the 'limited bandwidth' of a short message,
individuals do need to make explicit what might otherwise be left as
implicit views (opinion on the debate are often encoded rather than stated
in longer messages, but are no less present)

Facilitation and the set-up of any discussion can reduce it to a vote or
not - but unless the medium is a voting button (and even then...) it's
usually flesible...

 James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter than
> the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e. reflect
> for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better than that
> of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather than
> reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias.
> In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was
> secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity
> of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to
> plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities.
>

I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like
communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself
does? Or something else?


> Aldo
>

All the best

Tim


>
> On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern
>> communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at
>> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He
>> argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among
>> others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and
>> congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally,
>> I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we
>> have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are
>> preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into
>> consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC:
>> it allows for full multi-party discussion.
>>
>>  Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to
>> improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved
>> e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the
>> potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the
>> recent online blackout activities:
>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload
>>
>> Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA.
>>
>> Best, Ginger
>>
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> Diplo Foundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>
>> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Aldo Matteucci
> 65, Pourtalèsstr.
> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
> Switzerland
> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 


http://www.timdavies.org.uk
07834 856 303.
@timdavies

Co-director of Practical Participation:
http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
--------------------------
Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales -
#5381958.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120131/2e0c7c98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t