Internet Governance Models
Benevolent Dictatorship Model
Centralised non-democratic governance where the users consent to terms and conditions of the service provider/dictator. The perfect example is AOL.com online community.
Democracy Model
The users elect a body of representative that is entrusted to govern the Internet for a limited time. One of the biggest problems with this model is differing global values, customs and attitudes. Also, all the countries need to agree to accept the body’s decision. This can cause a problem with non-democratic countries such as China, Cuba and Iran that currently limit their citizen’s Internet access.
Moreover, it would be unlikely that Internet-based government would have the authority and police power to enforce its rulings.
Peer Production Model
In this model, there isn’t a centralised body but a decentralised and self-governed by the user. As a perfect example, could be eBay or many other communities’ web sites. Problems with this model include difficulties in ability to keep anonymous, misuse of trust and as usual vast geographic boundaries and locations with different laws and regulations.
Community Node-Based User Governance
This is the model that is suggested in this article. This model is decentralised and democratic as well as self-governed. In this model, there are real-life localities named community nodes where each user can help govern the community without the need to rely on a central body. Each community member decides independently what content (and not user) should or should not be removed from the community.
Here are things that came to my mind while reading about proposed model:
- What if a few users decided together to flag or eliminate postings? They may not be able to remove a member but they might have interior motives to affect their actions and decisions.
Quote: …angry online mob that could collectively fulfil the flagging threshold requirements of posts they disagreed with… sophisticated technological safeguards that limit the amount individual user can flag in a day… (page 24)
These actions does not have to happen within a day or be done by one person but it can be done against someone. - Quote: Hence, proactive and interested users can reliably act on behalf of and in the best interests of their community. (page 15). Maybe I am biased because I like to decide for myself what is for my best interests but to have others decide that? And in the best interest of whom?
- This model is better suited for geographically-based communities (physical locality) but one of the best features of the Internet is its universally access to any resource anywhere. I believe this models rellies too heavily on real world communities that cannot be implemented to the web.
- How would those community nodes get initiated? Also, who will be in charge of removing the bad content? What if one community finds it offensive but another community doesn’t? This model really divides a medium that by definition is open and accessible to all. What if the accused didn’t agree with the flagging and wanted to protect himself? Who will he turn to for arbitration purposes?
- This model is taken from Craigslist web site, which works well for one site but how can you imply from it to the entire of the Internet a s a global model.
- The US First Amendment discusses freedom of speech. Even though it is not a universal law, I believe it is a good one to abide by. This model does not support freedom of speech.
- I also a flagging system that is automated without the need for human interference and review a bit scary especially when involving actual living persons. Also, who will decide the flagging threshold? And will it be decided by click streams? These can be manipulated (as suggested in point 1).
- Quote: …local representatives elected to oversee a node… (page 23)
What local representatives? How can you define a local body when many community web sites on the web spread further than geographic locality?
In summary, I think that all the above models have their disadvantages but I strongly believe that the Community Node-Based User Governance is not the solution for governing the Internet.
Link: Alice Goldman, Community Node-Based User Governance (CNBUG): Applying Craigslist’s Techniques to Decentralized Internet Governance, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (last viewed on March 26, 2007)