Psybertron Asks

Watched a 2001 film tonight on Netflix that I’d never heard of until it popped-up. Starring Jack Nicholson and an “ensemble” cast of Hollywood’s great and good – Harry Dean Stanton, Helen Mirren, Micky Rourke, Vanessa Redgrave. Sean Penn as producer and director with music by Hans Zimmer. What’s not to like?

But I didn’t know any of that, other than the Jack Nicholson lead role, until I selected it. The reason it caught my eye as I scrolled over available recommendations was that I noticed The Pledge (the film) was based-on a book by Swiss-German author Friedrich Dürrenmatt.

Dürrenmatt is an exception to my pre-2001 experience of barely ever reading anything other than technical, popular science or news material, before I became a born-again devourer of fiction, classical and philosophical. Dürrenmatt’s “Die Physiker” (The Physicists) was a set text drama when I did Germanic Studies as a minority subject along with my Aeronautical Engineering degree major way back in 1974-77. The play was mixed in with other German language, culture and history syllabus, but it (and the tutor, now I think of her) made an impression that obviously stuck with me. Shortly after I embarked on this Psybertron research and writing project in 2001 (9/11) I picked-up and re-read Die Physiker in early 2002. it was relevant to my agenda for the obvious science vs morals content. And I’ve probably reviewed and mentioned it again another 10 times on my travels. It didn’t occur to me that Dürrenmatt had written anything more that had made it into English translation, and I’d never looked.

Die Physiker is a fictional drama based on patients known as Newton, Einstein and Möbius in a private mental institution / sanitorium, the first two because they are presumably schizophrenic patients with imagined identities. The third is presumed feigning his madness in order to lock himself away with the maddening guilt of physics having enabled the atomic bomb, with the realised ambiguity that he is in fact being locked in a secure institution by society for the same reason. (The sanitorium being called Les Cerisiers always put me in mind of Chekhov. Some big names played the main roles in an RSC 1963 production of the 1962 translation of the 1961 original.)

The Pledge (the book) is a quite different earlier work originally published in 1958 and first translated in 1959. The 2001 film screenplay is an adaptation, transposed from Switzerland to northern Nevada (rural small-towns around Reno). Very Scandi-noir watching it in 2025 and very evocative of Fargo (ND) given the harsh winters and the Scandinavian character names. As the Wikipedia notes suggest the detective – Jack Nicholson a “three-time loser with women” – does in effect solve the crime he has pledged justice for the victim’s family, despite the crime happening on the day of his retirement party. But his eventual failure to actually achieve the denouement, identify and bring the serial criminal to justice, is really just a series of bad choices and accidental events both relevant and incidental. Eventually after suffering ongoing accusations of madness in his obsession with keeping his promise, he really is driven mad by his failure. A requiem (in 1958) for the detective stories that are so common place today that involve elaborately constructed ambiguity and mis-direction of multiple suspects, etc. Gruesome the crimes and creepy the detective’s association with the actual and potential victims, relatives and witnesses, despite never doubting his sincere intentions – you must know you look madly obsessive and appear creepy even though we know you’re not – but a very well done psychological drama. Recommended.

I must seek out more Dürrenmatt works
(and add to the endless reading list).

=====

The whole Islamophobia / anti-Semitism debacle – is definitively racism either / both ways. Race itself is biologically ill-defined as a concept but it is nevertheless real. In same way Islam-ism / Juda-ism obviously have a social / intellectual angle around the religion itself vs freedoms of belief and religion and the cultural inheritance of societal values, most interactions and responses are bio-socio-physical. Racism and nationalism / national-identity especially when the topic is acts of violence and war. “Semites” of course are / were and Arab ethnic tribal name anyway, before being conveniently used to tag Judaism in recent decades.

It’s obviously compounded when the nation-states – like Iran & Afghanistan – involve non-Secular / Theocratic governments or other states harbour other deeper long-standing conflicts. Not just freedoms of belief and religion impinging upon the rights and freedoms of others, but imposition of one set of values and beliefs by physical means. Ironically, Israel the refuge of Zionism, and neighbouring Lebanon, has one of the most secular, liberal and tolerant cultures in honouring freedom of alternative religious belief (and practice).

Another issue on the other side is expectations about punishment, sanctions and sentencing when laws against violence are applied. The other side of that coin being merely the practical limitations, incentives and priorities of legally enforcing such measures. Complex to say the least and never entirely rational / objective / scientific. (eg Anyone who keeps their nose-clean during incarceration rightly expects to serve only a portion of their sentence. Prisons would be ungovernable otherwise.)

Obviously these are all topical again thanks to fuckwits – autistic simpletons – like Musk wading in on the UK “Grooming Gang” scandals (and New Year’s terrorist atrocities) – without the slightest hint of understanding any such complexity, nor even any signs caring about fellow humanity. Competitive tweeting / retweeting / disagreeing & community-noting binarily for or against either or both simplistic positions – “virtue-signalling” or indeed populist voting on such a basis – is purely degenerative. Worsening rather than solving any of any number of entangled issues. #PartOfTheProblem

If civilised intelligent people – especially those that claim to be on the side of free-thought and rationality in opposition to religious dogmatism and bigotry (and violence, against especially women) cannot see the need nor make the effort to disentangle the complexity of issues before rejecting or supporting any position, then there is no hope. With the impending imposition of “Trusk”, on UK, European and Middle-East politics as well as the US, it looks like this incoherent degeneracy is about to define 2025. Such incoherence can’t end well.

=====

I’ve promised myself several times I wouldn’t fall for inventing a new word for my work. There’s nothing new under the sun, and definitions – even evolving definitions – of existing words, are more about usage than constraining definitions. So long as your usage is clear, no need to get hung up on definitions or new words with their own subtly new definitions. [Definitions is a whole #GoodFences essay.] It’s all footnotes to Plato anyway.

One of the losing battles I face – there are many, and in fact #LosingBattles is another core topic in itself – is with the word Cybernetics. No matter how much I point out that the coining of the term at the 1946-onwards Macy conferences, was about its humanistic application to systems of complex global human governance following the disaster(s) of two world wars, everybody hears mechanistic / scientistic computer automation and feedback control. Of course their approaches were always about applying best known science and developing technologies to such problems – why wouldn’t we? – but as CP Snow (and JP Dupuy) would remind us any solution needed to work across both cultures – a third culture integrating the humanistic and the scientistic. Which is another footnote to Plato in itself.

With the massive successes and the progressive domination of every-day 21st century life with computing technologies since 1950’s, the Cyber prefix – as in Cyberspace – is now firmly associated in all minds with those physical technologies (even though it was never the intent of the likes of Wiener and Bertalanffy – it / they were always about self-governance of living systems, and from the original Greek, Cybernetics = Kybernetes = Governance. Another footnote to Plato).

I mused not so long ago – having stumbled upon Psybertron as a name encapsulating my agenda when I started this blog in 2001 – that I had also effectively coined the term Psybernetics as my take on the original intent of cybernetics, emphasising not just the governance but also the mental source of such governance in not just living systems, but consciously intelligent evolving living systems, like us and our ecosystems. Several orders more complex than any mechanistic machine-like system. [Hence the whole topical agenda on how complexity defines the nature of intelligent systems, and the nature of consciousness and intelligence themselves, real or artificial.]

So, before we get ahead of ourselves, I shall be using Psybernetics to refer to the explanations and behaviours of complex living systems that explicitly involve minds. As scientifically as possible, wherever possible of course, but nevertheless with the acknowledgement that minds are more than science.

=====

Previously:

Musing on using Psybernetics as a term – Feb 2024

First mention of Psybernetics – a couple of weeks earlier – Jan 2024

=====

2024 was a whole year consisting almost entirely of a single aside from my intended research and writing agenda. (Cut to the chase for 2025 Priorities?)

It was the 50th anniversary of publication of Robert Pirsig’s ZMM – his seminal “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. Helping to found the Robert Pirsig Association (RPA), getting it up and running on-line and supporting various #ZMM50th events became all-consuming. I say almost because I did also try to tie-in “more than science” working with the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS) thanks to their annual conference event originally timed to dovetail with the #ZMM50thRide. Sadly the eventual timings didn’t work out so I ended up supporting both whilst having to fund the time and money for two separate US trips. No other conferences and, apart from the odd weekend break, zero holidays and only one other foreign trip – a few days of paid and expensed Systems Engineering consulting in Q4. Interesting for its own technical content and useful in providing some unanticipated funds for the unplanned additional expenses. Still, incidentally, with a few hours follow-up to complete. One job to finish for the RPA commitments too – an update to the Pirsig Biographical Timeline.

But Pirsig was only ever one string to my bow. An important introduction to philosophy generally and to the timelessly recurring “philosophical division between the explicit / objective / classic / dialectical and the implicit / intuitive / romantic / rhetorical”. His Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) was an original monist framing and a useful framework to this day. There’s been 50+ years of evolution of science and philosophy (and politics) since Pirsig’s magnum opus, with even better explanatory theories of how Pirsig’s physical > biological > social > intellectual level relations actually work and how his Zen Quality take on immediate “radical-empirical” experience still represents the moral imperative for our attention to the world beyond science. Not by coincidence, “more than science” remains the outstanding follow-up item from the ISSS workshop that very much contributes to my ongoing research and writing project. Sadly Pirsig didn’t – and only a few Pirsig scholars did – engage with other philosophers and scientists beyond the Greeks into the 21st century. Time waits for no man.

So, apart from the 3 commitments above …

• • • Update to the Pirsig Biographical Timeline
    • Consolidating output from the ISSS “more than science” session.
    • Clarifying responses to my systems consulting customer.

… I’m back on the original agenda.

As ever I have  several open issues to read or file for future reference:

• • • Ben Taylor’s Systems Thinking Reading List.
    • Simon Wardley’s “Wardley Maps” generally.
    • Which reminds me, the Dave Snowden / Cynefin “more than science” dialogue.
    • Nicole Rust’s readings of Francis Crick and Kevin Mitchell.
    • Stephen Mumford’s readings of Russell’s metaphysics.
      (See previously …)
    • Engaging with Birkbeck, London CCCM?
    • A critical reading of Michael Levin’s Mind “Technology” project?
    • RL Kuhn’s Taxonomy of Consciousness Explanations.
    • Drucker’s 1994 letter to Bill Emmott at The Economist.
    • Completing a tabulation of the Macy “Humanist” Cybernetics topics.
      (And here at the ACS. Ditto a re-reading of Dupuy)
    • How Cyber did for Cybernetics – NOT – “relating to computers, computer networks, or technology” (Cyber-Space).
    • Naturalised Teleology.
    • Brian Goodwin (Edge 1997) – New Science of Qualities.
    • Gabrielle Bammer and Jean Bolton on Science & Subjectivity.

Last years project priorities pretty much remain this years.

Original 2022 Version – Writing Progress – for 2023

1. 1. 1. The Position – (T – Outline) a statement of what I believe, in brief.
      2. The Thesis – (T) the whole formal “how and why” development of that.
      3. Good Fences – an essay on one corollary of the whole.
      4. Sacred Naturalism – an essay on another corollary of the whole.
      5. Primary Sources – an acknowledgement of the main originators.
      6. Time and Tide – (F) a fictional narrative inspired by the whole.

Updated Nov & Dec 2023 “Resolution” – for 2024

… to prioritise my own deliverables.
T – Maybe the priority is “T” (The Technical Text)
F – which may contribute not only to “F” (The Fictional Narrative) but years of prior research and writing into
D – a potentially shorter version of “D” (The Doctoral Thesis)?
P – My involvement in “P” (The Robert Pirsig Association) can only be short-term / part-time.

Priorities Now – Dec 2024 – for 2025

Priority #1

• • T – my Technical Thesis, probably still in parts:
    • OT – Outline / summary of my starting position
      • “My Project” (recent summary)
      • RP – Research (PhD) Proposal (already draft 4)
      • PS – Personal Statement (already published)
    • ST – Specific topics deserving of individual chapter / essays
      (Good Fences, More Than Science, Sacred Naturalism, etc.)

Priority #2

• • F – the (pen-named auto-)fictional novel

Priority #3

• • • Pirsig / RPA – Timeline update + only a supporting role
    • Conferences (UK Only in 2025)
      • ISSS-2025 (Birmingham) follow-up to DC-2024 above.
      • HTLGI-2025 (Hay-on-Wye) – as the name says 🙂
      • OxfordLitFest-2025 (Oxford) McGilchrist et al
    • TS-SitP – local attendee / participation only
    • Other pub, blog & social-media dialogues.

=====

I’ve mentioned Charles Handy only a few times in my thought journey, maybe only a dozen times here on Psybertron, without spending much time specifically referencing or quoting his work. Together with Tom Peters and Peter Drucker I singled him / them out, in my 1988/91 Master’s Thesis, as a management writer beyond the changing fashions of the “airport bookstall” management texts. One of the people who got the quality of humanity in organisational processes and relationships, business or otherwise, or simply “cybernetics” in my preferred term. So together with my original humanist mentor, Jeff Turnell way back in 1979/80, part of the embedding of humanism in my own world-view.

He was of course, also a (Christian) lay-preacher, and his words of wisdom were spread as much through his BBC Radio 4 “Thought for the Day” contributions – particularly in that “driving the kids to school” period of life – as through his “management” writing and teaching.

A given, part of the fabric, my constitution, where I rarely feel the need to mention the sources, and in fact I had barely noticed his work continued during the 21st century. But credit where it is due.

Wisdom is one of those words gradually re-establishing its value, after decades of pillorying by the “scientistic”, the so-called “critical thinkers” as woolly and ill-defined. And I notice several people using it in their own reflections on working with Charles Handy. Just a few examples:

Here someone on LinkedIn who saw him as a mentor,

Here another LinkedIn thread.

And here the FT Obituary that started the above thread.

And another LinkedIn post on Handy’s “Empty Raincoat”.

=====

Previously:

My (1991) Master’s Thesis.

The (2005) Pirsig paper that effectively set the agenda for Psybertron.

My Identifying as a Humanist

My (2024) Research Proposal

Wisdom as “more than” Science.

• • First formal attempt for one “Skeptic” audience.
  • Notes of a piece of a work-progress writing for ISSS audience.
  • Ongoing dialogue with Dave Snowden, latest instalment.

The search result for all references throughout Psybertron.

=====

 

A regular dialogue here on Psybertron is defending the reality of Dennett’s conceptions of mind in the face of those who see only the sound-bite quotes about the illusory aspects of our intuition about our minds. As I often say, our minds (and hence consciousness) are as real as anything else in our ontology of what exists in the world, so I was attracted by the title of this Aeon piece, which incidentally now exists only in the link not in the actual title and subtitle on the face of the article itself.

“As Real as it Ever Gets – Dennett’s Conception of Mind”
by Tim Bayne, Ed Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites)

Anyway, I Tweeted:

Dennett clearly defended the position that philosophy was “more than” science, and what he did was:

“Dennett helped shift Anglo-American philosophy towards a coalition with science.”

And

“in Dennett’s view, relatively little of folk psychology is beyond salvation. What needs to go is not so much folk psychology, but the gloss on folk psychology that philosophers [of the linguistic turn] have imposed on it. In that regard, Dennett doesn’t mark a radical rupture in the aims or methods of philosophy of mind, but instead belongs firmly in the tradition of his mid-century heroes, Ryle and Wittgenstein.”

Can’t argue with that conclusion, but yet again, no mention of his (2017) “From Bacteria to Bach and Back” his own summary of the actual content of his life’s work on the evolution of mind, before his final autobiographical work (2023) “I’ve Been Thinking”.

Great to see a serious critique that recognises Wittgenstein as a hero of my own hero. Hofstadter – erstwhile Dennett collaborator – also came to understand this despite steering clear of Wittgenstein in his earlier work.  My own summary of what I got from Dennett I posted back in April.

=====

I’ve listened to the whole of this 3-way interview / dialogue between JBP, Glinner and Doyle. Hard to take everything JBP says seriously, too many sweeping statements, but this is an excellent piece of content on so many of my agenda items, JBP’s contributions as well as his guests. On the back of Glinner & Doyle (& Gourlay & Schneider) new comedy production project in the US (in Phoenix, AZ).

Really, really excellent. Most explicitly about the whole woke gender culture-war, but so much more. (The reason this particular issue is the exemplar in my own thinking.)

Foucault, post-modernism, PoPoMo.

The court jester.

Obvious why this stuff is worse in UK culture vs US land of free-opportunity.

Psychology, opportunism, victimhood,  – the problem of direct human interconnectedness – “unintended consequences of the internet” bad ideas move too fast as I’ve called the Dysmemic / Memetic Problem.

NCHI’s as per Thursday night’s talk. Nothing wrong with recording “Perceived” complaints before any crime is established – normal in fact, but perception and intent are crucial to what is judged when recorded. Artificial objectification is the problem. The process is the punishment / cost.

The need for proper dialogue to change minds, clear-up misunderstandings, rather than simply spreading them.

=====

Just a holding post for the latest in a long series of dialogue with Dave Snowden and his Cynefin complexity-science / systems-thinking. Probably need to address in some detail:

Regularities & Reductionism #1/2

Regularities & Reduction #2/2

Both part of his Anthro-Complexity series. I need to join up some dots with earlier exchanges.

=====

A New Conversation

Having a new conversation with a couple in the bar last night, showed lots of interest in the ideas shared and discussed here, and it became quite positively passionate. Lots of shared recognition. Reminded me of another conversation a week or so ago, which I didn’t mention yet.

The one last week was simpler, because the focus was Humboldt and the two books by Andrea Wulf much loved and discussed here, and where copies had been left in the bar book-club. Seemed we had a new fan, appreciating Humboldt’s amazing international adventures and his massive influence on the great and the good of the age of revolution in the first book, whilst itching to get to “the invention of the self” agenda of the Humboldts’ extended family circle back in Jena in the second book, again with a name-droppers dream in its cast of real characters. Darwin himself acknowledged Humboldt’s important influence. No doubt we’ll talk again when he finishes the second 🙂

Last night started much more general with a question about what “my post-retirement project (to save the world 🙂 !!!)” was. I was able to give a 4 or 5 sentence statement (see below), which started the conversation described at the top. What floored me – apart from the enthusiasm – was the final question. What would I recommend they read to understand more? I should have stock answers – elevator pitches – for both of those questions, of course.

I didn’t say “this Psybertron blog”.
www.psybertron.org

I didn’t say the Humboldt books, above.
(Especially the second.)

I didn’t say McGilchrist’s “The Matter With Things”.
(The most comprehensive and thoroughly researched & referenced account of where the dominant 20thC worldview is leading our understanding of the world astray – but a massive and expensive undertaking to read from a cold start. He re-habilitates the true position of left-right brain thinking despite it remaining contentious among deniers. Attention / ways of attending, as a moral act.)

I didn’t say Mark Solms’ “The Hidden Spring”.
(The best very technical explanation of where our real – subjective, bio-psychological – knowledge of the world arises in our consciousness, yes, even the knowledge we conceptualise as objective – one very important core issue, but not the whole psycho-social-intellectual story. Very important basis in the fundamental information & computation vs entropy & complex systems (“Free Energy Principle”) view of the foundations of physics and hence all evolved, living things, if you want to dig even deeper with Solms and Friston – cross the Rubicon – into the real scientific underpinnings of this “more-than-objective-science” story of our subjective, intuitive experience.)

I didn’t say my hero Dan Dennett (RIP) and his “From Bacteria to Bach and Back”.
The most patient, avuncular, philosopher-guide along the real evolutionary story of our consciousness. (Still so many philosophy-vs-science misunderstanding-deniers of his work but, with the help of the two above, there really is no longer any mystery about our consciousness of ourselves and the world.)

I didn’t say Robert Pirsig (RIP) and his “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila” though I did mention ZMM in the course of the conversation.
(Still to this day an excellent introduction to the moral philosophical framework of the whole evolved physical-bio-socio-intellectual stack of reality, which nails the Zen or “Quality”  radical-empirical-experience-of / immediate-attention-to the world firmly as its insubstantial foundation. That “attention as a moral act” massively elaborated by McGilchrist above, who freely admits to have been influenced by Pirsig but, like many many others, finds it difficult to academically reference the work with the whacky Zen title and the imagined 1960’s hippy life-style associations. Quality will out.)

I didn’t mention Dupuy’s “Mechanisation of the Mind”
Although I do use a few quotes from Dupuy, it’s intriguing that I didn’t fully appreciate how much it intersected with all the topics I’ve mentioned, the first time I read it right at the start of my journey. It set me up for so many of my “Psybernetic” research avenues, and is actually a good introductory read I realise. (And having reminded myself of Dupuy, I now notice that the ASC’s own summary of the 1946 Macy “Cybernetics” conferences makes extensive use of Dupuy.)

I did mention that some of the very basic “is / ought” aspects of everyday life were as old as ancient Greek philosophy and remain as relevant to today’s problem. (In its simplest form, what “is” is or can be factual, objective, scientific whereas what we “ought” to do isn’t and never can be, certainly not entirely. The massive success of science and technology – and the relatively easy use of objective numbers and arithmetic-maths compared to the complexity of human systems – dominates and hides that very important “not entirely”.)

I didn’t mention any of the Complex Systems Thinkers and their many published theories, sciences and methods, mainly because most – but not all – still ignore the underlying philosophical / epistemological problem.

I did for some reason suggest watching the new BBC “Renaissance” docu-drama, because it’s topical and surprisingly relevant – maybe after you understand the intellectual journey above?

One day I’d hope to recommend the book(s) I’m writing, as much better organised versions of the thoughts scattered throughout this blog. Meantime maybe see my Research Proposal.

=====

My opening statement of what “my project” is about:

(The research proposal above contains a good statement of the problem, but the following is more or less what I said last night.)

The root topic is Cybernetics (or Systems Thinking) as originally conceived post-WWII by the 1946 Macy Conferences. (There was actually a similar movement post-WWI, but of course our backsliding into WWII meant much momentum was lost. And many before, it turns out.) Imagine being among the smartest people in the world – running our institutions post the industrial revolution – and asking yourself how did we fuck it up so badly, twice. We really must learn to do better? This was their project. Cybernetics was always about human systems of organisation and self-governance – the most complex of physio-bio-psycho-socio-cultural systems, despite the word becoming most associated with the successes of industrial computation and automation via feedback and the like.

Similarly, in parallel with that science and technology success in cybernetics, objective science and technology have come to dominate all our information and decision-making processes. In free-democracies – the best forms of government, before we get to best forms of democracy, local national, international, global? – we expect decisions and policies justified on “fully costed” plans and cost-benefit-risk analyses and the like. Arithmetic. Numbers. Despite the fact we see the massive hearts and minds effects of rhetoric, sound-bites, symbols and slogans, good and bad?

It’s “my project” because after ~30 years as a Systems Engineer in industry I had seen time after time how the explicit / objective / factual (classical) won out over the intuitive / implicit / valuable (romantic). The nagging doubt that we were missing something important was kicked in the pants by 9/11 and the ensuing God vs Science wars, (and now all the woke-PC / anti-woke culture wars) before I even knew for the first time that the recurring classic / romantic division was as old as philosophy itself, a subject I knew nothing about, 25 years ago, before I read ZMM.

Be nice to find ways to improve before we slide into WWIII or worse, global / environmental disaster?

(No-one is messianic enough, least of all me, to believe we are “saving the world!”. Like many others I’m hoping individual efforts to fix misunderstandings that are leading us astray will help steer the evolutionary direction of progress.  There are actually lots of people who “get it” – they’re just drowned out by dominant 21stC communication paradigms and understandings. I’m not proposing anything that hasn’t already been thought of, it’s about synthesising / evolving ways of doing better. But none of it is possible without fixing the core misunderstanding.)

=====

How free should public communications be?

General

Simple fact is that free-speech in a free-democracy does need regulation and, if we are serious about that regulation, we do have to be prepared to enforce it and sanction transgressions, ultimately backed with the power of the law. Guard rails in the current vernacular. Inescapable.

What is appropriate in the rules of communications, and what is proportionate in their enforcement are hugely context dependent. Even accepting that basic fact, it gets worse. Perversely, the broader the context – as in global public social media – the tighter the controls need to be. Let that sink in.

Current State

X/Twitter, post Musk, has made the error of absolute freedom, limited only by criminality in the communications. This leads to degenerate, unhealthy, polarising, high-noise, counter-productive discourse, long before we get to the last resort of legality. X/Twitter is currently failing to control either content or behaviour, and the inevitable degeneration is driving many to leave – or consider leaving – for pastures blue.

BlueSky has started to enforce “content” controls, simply by deleting the content. This is far too crude long-term, degenerate in the “woke/PC” direction, blocking/erasing anyone or anything that anyone MIGHT claim to be offensive to anyone for any reason. Hopefully this a temporary response to sudden surge in numbers – but it is already generating a backlash. And what it’s effectively doing is drawing the polarisation battle lines physically between these two platforms, making them very distinct silos or echo-chambers, not just different factional interests within any one platform. Doubly unhealthy.

Blocking, erasing, deleting or cancelling are NOT moderation. But, either extreme of freedom vs moderation is unhealthy. What neither of the above is doing is regulating what matters, which is behaviour. Very little content need be absolutely taboo (see legal constraints). Generally, it’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it. Anyone who has ever moderated any serious online discussion group knows this is non-trivial philosophically and linguistically.

[Facebook / Threads is in a different game. Nothing to recommend it here?]

Mastodon, so far, has exhibited very little of the degeneration, although ad-hominem behaviour is already creeping in, despite much lower numbers and traffic than any of the above. What is different however is that whilst X/Twitter, BlueSky and Threads are centralised, Mastodon is distributed and federated.

Practical Possibilities

The question is always asked when controls are suggested – however sensible the rules themselves – “Who decides, who does the controlling and moderating?”. With centralised systems – especially one like the Musk / Trump alliance – this question has enormous authoritarian implications. With multiple federated systems with distributed moderation arrangements, people can experience and cluster around environments that suit their needs, and we can let market forces drive the distribution between Mastodon instances.

X/Twitter already has the hooks for distributed moderation in its “Community Note” mechanism, though even that is already gamed and abused. Ultimately it really is about behaviour. What none of them have yet is individual tuning of the dreaded algorithms. Personally I’m an “all / latest” user, in order to minimise the effect of feed algorithms, and is only practical if you keep numbers down. At this point it’s about commercial / monetisation interests of the platforms and the users. Personally, it’s the reason I’ve paid for my “Pro” X/Twitter instance, no-one need advertise anything I don’t follow. But much more configurable experience – including the moderation “style” – is needed.

Behaviour? See Rules of Engagement.

[END]

=====

Previously “Freeze Peach“ – an earlier draft to edit the rules of engagement to fit the social-media behaviour / moderation model.

=====

Post Notes:

All the people “announcing” their X/Twitter departures to their “new” BlueSky accounts are quite comical if sad. I signed-up to both BlueSky and Mastodon as soon as they became available, immediately after the Musk / Trump takeover which completed over 2 years ago, and have been monitoring activity and behaviour there ever since. (Links top right here and in my X/Twitter bio.) It’s about behaviour NOT about the technology.

I’ve several times labelled people like Colin Wright @SwipeWright and James Esses @JamesEsses and Matt Goodwin www.mattgoodwin.org as “trolls” in this game. On the specific content of their “anti-woke” agendas and statements I’m on the same side and mostly agree. It’s their extreme rhetoric I reject as #PartOfTheProblem – like their wishful yearning for  Christopher Hitchens . Sure enough it grabs the attention of low-attention span men of few coherent words, like Musk / Trump, but it’s a dangerous game – cutting off noses to spite faces. I too have been “warning” the liberal-left @UKLabour @USDems @HumanistsUK they were missing the important message in the woke / anti-woke “culture war since I first read Alice Dreger on sex/gender politics in 2015 and more generally since I started this blog in 2001 and joined Twitter on SMS before it became an App in 2007. Warning continuously that if the liberal-left didn’t get a grip on the science / dialectic / facts vs subjective-identity / rhetorical / rights&freedoms balance, then the opposing right / libertarian press and politics were going to wipe the floor with them on the emotional issues. Let’s be clear, like broken clocks, people like Musk / Trump / Badenoch can be right twice a day on the woke / DEI agenda but still be wholly reprehensible, dangerous and unfit for office. They remain so. Retweeting without qualification? Careful what you wish for. You can have too much #CreativeDestruction

Yogi Yaeger on Mastodon: https://mastodon.online/@yoginho@spore.social

If it’s elitist to think we should have the best people lead us instead of corrupt morons taking over everything then, yes, do count me as an elitist.

If it’s against free speech to want pathological liars censored then, yes, I’m against free speech.

If progress is the greediest bastards pushing the most dangerous technologies on us for nobody’s benefit but their own then, yes, call me a luddite.

An extreme statement of the crux of the problem.

And an essay on why decentralised social media is best from Oxford via Mastodon, naturally.

=====