It’s the information. I don’t want full information. I’d prefer that I was able to set this default, and others knew that I had a very strong feeling for very strong reasons. There’s a bit of coercion in there, I guess.
I think it feels like maybe that’s not what I get, if it was a system where the default was fully open, and everyone else wrangled back the amount of data they put into a system.
Yeah, if it’s a slow opt out, potentially like your policy sort of thing, where people have to know to ask for each little bit they want to take back. Then you might not get this unique, standardized experience of metadata.
I think I don’t always know where to fall on that thinking. I feel like sometimes the system needs to standardize how much aggregation is happening, and how much anonymization. That’s the only thought there. Could I have a question on vTaiwan?
Has anyone thought much about the in-person experience of creating an in-person analogue of Pol.is interactions? I’ve been really interested in a guy named Alex Pentland.
Do you know him?
[laughs] “Of course.” It was a very frank response.
I have a big intellectual crush on him. I’m still trying to grapple with the math.
His lab has developed an open source, they call them sociometric badges. It can tie to lots of other data, but at its simplest, you go in and put on a lanyard for a conference, and it has a thing that knows what all the other lanyards’ IDs are.
As people move around through real physical worlds, talk, join groups, and spend time together, and then move, split up, and join other groups, and spend time together, they’re building a data set of how much time they spend together.
Then it also has a microphone that points up. It knows how much sharing of the building of the conversation is happening. It knows, “I’m talking too much, and probably have been since I came in the room.”
I’m informationing, sending lots of information, but that’s not an equitable conversation if you’re not sharing information, because you know lots of things. The badges, I’m so curious whether they could be used to take data from...We’ve run workshops inspired by Pol.is and vTaiwan, where we do this live in the room.
We say, “OK, over there, that corner is agree. That corner is disagree. If you unsure, go behind me.” You’re moving back and forth in between three spots, as you’re announcing the statements. “Who agrees, who disagrees?”
In a physical space. It’s people are spending time together.
Yeah, was that the one that, did CS run that part?
It felt really successful, because people saw, they were feeling who they spent more time with. They were crossing paths with people. They were recognizing who’s never beside them. The really cool part was that everyone could participate in, for lack of a better word, interrogating the unsure people.
Like, “Why are you unsure?” Is that statement a combination statement? Could you tease it apart? Could you frame it in a better way? There’s something that feels very satisfying about that, but I guess if we had to add an extra step, where we brought all of that into Pol.is, it feels like it would amazing to have it actually projected onscreen.
Using the sociometric badges, you could know, we’ve asked who agrees, who disagrees. Everyone’s staying still. That was the answer to this.
You could build the Pol.is visualization on the fly, and help everyone in the room -- and maybe in other rooms, or maybe on the Internet, clicking it manually -- participate in building that understanding, like the emotional landscape. I don’t know if I have time for a project while here. [laughs]
I have a hard time ordering...
Yeah, I would love to.
I would love to let you borrow this book after. It’s the one where they’re discussing these sorts of things, and it’s so good.
I underlined lots.
There’s a basement here?
As in, I can store the book here until I come back?
That’s cool.
That’s so great.
That’s super cool. There’s a restaurant in Toronto that works like that, it inverts. There’s so much good stuff in the world and so little time. I just want to have infinite...Related to that, what is decent work related to vTaiwan?
Does money have a place? Can money be sanitized, and actually allow people the focus to work on things without breaking the motivations?
I feel like grants distort, because there’s a grant maker. There’s a giver who has interests. Also, there’s a clockwork-ness. In Canada, if you get one grant, and you’re not in any way prepared for the time after that one grant, everything can shatter when the grant doesn’t arrive again.
There’s conversations around creating a diversity of funding sources, like not just the big grant-making body, but also a hundred mini-bosses.
Yeah, crowd. That there’s this, you go from receiving the grant to having many supports through your efforts over that period, and maybe corporate supporters. But all carefully, thoughtfully, so that the desires of the supporters don’t...
There’ll always be some influence, but it’s detoxifying the signaling of the money, what the money-givers want, and separating it from their ability.
I heard about that.
Is that like paid voting?
It seems like there could be a lot of moving pieces in this. Does it involve prediction markets?
It feels like a lot of pieces.
What about, do you have any feeling...I guess I feel more hopeful in the short term about Open Collective.
Yes. I think the entity, the type of organization that the bank account belongs to, is arbitrary.
How I understand Open Collective is more of a virtualizing of the nonprofit -- or certain organizational structures, but mostly nonprofits -- to, the great way Pia puts is that, “Oh, it used to be one website per server, and that made sense.”
Then you virtualized those websites, and you had 400 websites on one server. Then it didn’t even matter. They’re doing that with nonprofits and the offerings that they have, whether liability insurance, lawyer, or payroll. You create one nonprofit.
Some parts of it. I think maybe I didn’t understand where the money from Jothon was giving away the grants.
Insurrection?
I will admit, I feel much, much better about the Jothon, the g0v grants. I think I worry about someone having money, if it’s a community member, even if that they’re directing behaviors towards. What I find really interesting about Open Collective is that the relationship doesn’t need to involve giving any money.
It’s that your project, and you now have a zero slice in our bank account, which you can then find your own fundraising sponsor resources, and expand that slice. We’ll maintain a system that allows you to withdraw, that allows you manage repaying people, but it’s not giving money. It’s giving potential.
I think it’s the zero slice, that there’s no money given. It’s opportunity, and it’s your motivation that will bring in the money. No one’s ever being shut down. It’s not like, “No, you don’t get the money.”
It’s, “Oh, you have a crazy idea. We’re not even going to hold your money.” That feels really different. I have infinite ability to virtualize a bunch of projects if I don’t have to pay them. If they can now use that, my abilities, and go out and find their own, it’s a network effect. It’s net-centric fundraising.
I’m hoping that one happens before I go back.
I think I go back on the 17th.
Yes. There’s some complications, because my visa’s technically done then, perhaps the day before. I think someone mentioned maybe, would it...Someone, I think, said it might be possible to do it the week before, or the weekend before, although I know it doesn’t move easily.
