Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Michael Allan]

Hi Marc,

I return to answer your questions from last month.  Please be patient
with me, because there's a misunderstanding to clear up.

> a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
> b) within the context of a discourse
> c) and without any loss of data.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?

No, not yet.  I understand (a), because I introduced it myself.  It's
the basic human right of free association.  What I don't understand is
how it's qualified by location (b) or technical considerations (c).
Human rights are universal, of course.  They apply everywhere.  So (a)
cannot possibly be qualified by (b), as implied here.

Certain qualifications *are* possible in individual cases.  Dangerous
criminals are denied freedom, for example.  But no human right can be
qualified for the sake of a mere technical consideration.  So (a)
cannot possibly be qualified by (c), either.

I'm sure you know all this.  You say so below.  But nevertheless you
imply the opposite with this union of (a, b, c).  This confuses me.

> > I agree with (a), but why restrict the user's choice to (b) and
> > (c)?  Suppose user U needs a toolset that covers only part of the
> > discourse, or part of the data.  Why not give U the same freedom
> > as others to choose according to personal need, or preference?
> > Who would have the authority to say, "No, that choice is not
> > permitted".
> 
> That's not what I wanted to express. The user should not be
> restricted in any way, but can choose whatever toolset he wants,
> using whatever data he wants. Even if not any transition between
> tools might be reasonable in the context of the discourse.

Then isn't the following what you mean to say?

  (a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling.

Period.  Or more precisely:

  (a) Let each user freely choose his/her favorite tooling.

If you agree to this, then please don't speak of other things in the
same connection.  Until we agree on (a), introducing (b) and (c) as
part of that agreement implies that you don't agree to (a) alone.

> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free
> to use the toolset of his free choice. But one big thing missing now
> is the availability of the data. When it comes to changing the
> tools, the move of already entered data is mainly the problem. And
> to be honest, I don't want to enter the data again, just because I
> switched the tool, do you?

No, not if it's unecessary and harmful.  But more important, I would
like to have other tools to switch to *in the first place*.  I would
not like the other tools to be forbidden, or to have their development
impeded or limited in any way.  So here I return to (a) all alone,
when you wish in the same breath to speak of (b) and (c).  You said:

> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free
> to use the toolset of his free choice. ...

Today you are right.  But tomorrow?  I'm sorry to repeat, but we must
be especially clear on this issue.  A platform cannot succeed without
users.  There are exactly two ways to obtain those users:

  (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus
      leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range
      freely from platform to platform.

  (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
      platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

The fact that we have freedom of choice in 2013 does not give us
licence to take away that freedom in 2014 and to put a monopoly in its
place.  Of course not.  Yet that is exactly our intention if we aren't
working to obtain our users by method (1).  There are no grey areas in
between, so the only possible alternative is to obtain those users by
method (2), which is the opposite of free choice.

In other words, if we really agree to (a), then we must work on (1).
And if we don't work on (1), then we don't really agree to (a).
Logically this is inescapable.

> I am not talking about merging plattforms - there should plenty of
> them exist. The trick is to make them cooperate by sharing data and
> enhancing the processes one another.

There won't be plenty of platforms by default.  There will be exactly
one platform unless we cooperate to enable free choice.  We might have
state-of-the-art data transfers, but no platforms to transfer to.
We're living in a period that's like the laissez-faire of the 1800s.
Society has yet to learn the necessity of a safe environment for
competition.  Therefore we must cooperate to create our own safe
environment, or it'll be dog-eat-dog.  Only the biggest will survive.

Of all the projects, AG Meinungsfindungstool is the most forward
thinking.  That's what attracted us (Thomas and me) to your earlier
powwows.  You understood the distinction between primary and decision
systems and the need to keep the two separate.  You understood the
need for discussion as opposed to the mindless pressing of vote
buttons.  And you were working to enable a free choice of tools, at
least within your own platform, which is (at least) a step in the
right direction.  These three things put you out in front of the field
and made it worthwhile talking to you.

(And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this, even if
they don't see it yet.  So altogether it's a very interesting topic.)

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


marc said:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> You wrote:
> > Marc and Alex,
> > Marc said:
> >> B) Why do you do not want to merge Outcast and CDS?
> >
> > Thank you, I do.  We just have to finish clarifying how the merged
> > platform is going to obtain its users.  Again, either we (1) eliminate
> > network effects and enable the users to range freely across all
> > platforms, including competitors; or (2) rely on network effects to
> > force all users onto the single, merged platform.
> 
> I am not talking about merging plattforms - there should plenty of them 
> exist. The trick is to make them cooperate by sharing data and enhancing the 
> processes one another.
> 
> >> I am still towards (1) and I don't see any reason not to be. But I
> >> guess we have some basic misunderstanding here.
> >>
> >> So let's condense the goal:
> >>
> >> a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
> >> b) while the whole discourse is covered and
> >> c) without any loss of data.
> >>
> >> What is the point now?
> >
> > I agree with (a), but why restrict the user's choice to (b) and (c)?
> > Suppose user U needs a toolset that covers only part of the discourse,
> > or part of the data.  Why not give U the same freedom as others to
> > choose according to personal need, or preference?  Who would have the
> > authority to say, "No, that choice is not permitted".
> 
> That's not what I wanted to express. The user should not be restricted in 
> any way, but can choose whatever toolset he wants, using whatever data he 
> wants. Even if not any transition between tools might be reasonable in the 
> context of the discourse.
> 
> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free to use 
> the toolset of his free choice. But one big thing missing now is the 
> availability of the data. When it comes to changing the tools, the move of 
> already entered data is mainly the problem. And to be honest, I don't want 
> to enter the data again, just because I switched the tool, do you?
> 
> 
> Therefore (b) and (c) is more the responsibility of the tools to ensure that 
> the user has all the freedom within the discourse and no restrictions at 
> all!
> Therefore (b) and (c) are not a restriction to the user! It is quite the 
> contrary, it allows for the freedom of choice!
> 
> 
> So let me put it in a slightly different way with keeping the explanation 
> above in mind:
> 
> a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
> b) within the context of a discourse
> c) and without any loss of data.
> 
> 
> Does this make sense to you?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> marc