Yup. This is all about that video I made. This whole thing is wonderful and crazy, not to mention pretty historical for the internet. Check it out.
Here’s what happened, as explained by The Sydney…
From the creator of the original video.
Among the most important changes in the structure of this society is the rise of engineers and the ethics they make manifest. There’s an efficiency, a no bullshit this-is-how-this-obviously-should-work to them, and an incredible (an undeserved) humility to much of what they do. Steve Brill’s story about geeks who rescued Obamacare is a perfect example of the engineers’ power and place in this society — both the only effective intervention, and the one intervention Obama ignored.
When I wrote Code (here’s v2), I spent a great chunk of the book focused on the sovereigns that cyberspace would enable — geek driven sovereigns, as the law of those spaces would be code. And as a lawyer too often disappointed by the limited justice within my own field, I was hopeful that maybe here, something better would be built.
Fifteen years later, I guess I feel the story is mixed. There are of course things which would have boggled the imagination in 1999 which coders and others have built — Wikipedia at the top of that list, and to which Codev2 was dedicated.
But I have often been struck by the limited imagination these code-based sovereigns have when it comes to simple matters of simple justice. The norm is feudalism more than justice, as if its the 15th or 16th century, as if the ideals of due process or simple decency are all lost, as if right is coder-might.
I’ve drawn that sense vaguely, as I’ve watched different struggles develop. But it’s been brought home to me quite literally with a battle I’ve recently watched my 10 year old son wage, and despite my help (or maybe because of it), lose.
My son is a brilliantly focused geek-wannabe who is obsessed with a game that is everything I had hoped cyberspace would become — Minecraft. From its unlikely birth, to its incredible adoption rate, to the potential for innovation and creativity that it has made manifest, Minecraft is, in my view, one of the wonders of this (cyber) world.
One feature of Minecraft is the diversity of Minecraft servers — the company has smartly outsourced the server problem by enabling others to run their own servers. These others run either a simple plain-vanilla installation (my son did this for a bit), or they fancy it up with cool innovations that make their space differently interesting.
In doing this, many (try to) make money. Servers sell ranks, or other bundles of goods. Some encourage users to earn goods. Not to say that every one of these models for extracting money from users is wonderful. What is wonderful is the diversity and the chance that anyone has to try to add value to either Minecraft or the ecology of Minecraft.
My son has recently tripped onto VillagerDefense, a server developed by LegendaryCraft, which boasts that it’s the “world’s highest populated online gaming community with millions of logins each month!” (Who knew!) In the particular mode he engages, the game encourages you to earn “coins.” That takes work. The father in me is cool with him working hard to earn something. So I was ok with him playing and growing his collection over many weeks.
Then Monday, something crashed. We were on a trip together (I serving as a single parent trying to give two talks in two states, dragging him along), and he was logged in and playing while I was preparing my slides. He had about 240 coins as he logged off. Six hours later, 175 of those had disappeared.
He was (inappropriately) devastated (given the real stakes at issue here — but he had worked for many weeks to earn those coins so I was not going to try to persuade him it wasn’t important). I suggested he raise the issue in the forum. He did. But what followed was the sort of justice that Dickens would have mocked.
The forum moderator informed my son that there had been a bug in the system, and a bunch of people had lost their coins. He suggested my son present a “screen shot” of before and after, “proving” he had had the coins and had now lost them.
When my son reported this response to me, I was genuinely puzzled. A screen shot? Seriously? The moderator explained that people had lied in the past, so they needed better “evidence” than someone’s word. But I hadn’t realized liars couldn’t use Photoshop. Or put differently, this rule of “evidence” didn’t stop liars. It stopped people who had lost coins who were not liars (and so not willing to photoshop a coin count) who hadn’t been taking regular screen shots while playing the game (because who does, for god’s sake).
I joined the forum and asked where the game ever announced that people were supposed to be taking screen shots of their play? And after all, why would a screenshot be necessary? The game is a database. Are there no snapshots of the database? Isn’t there a backup, or audit trail?
The moderator wouldn’t budge. It’s screenshot or nothing — except of course he admitted that he himself wasn’t in charge. The actual owners of the site were to busy to respond to mere Villagers. His advice:
Sorry about your son’s missing coins, but for now I recommend for him to play the game some more and attempt to obtain more coins, and we will try to get the coin bug resolved to prevent similar occurrences.
This is amazing at many levels. The site knows it has a bug. That bug is removing assets from its users. To get those assets back, the owners of the site ask, “What would Kafka do?” Obviously, Kafka would require something totally absurd — like the requirement that you take regular screenshots of your game to protect the assets in your game, or photoshop screenshots to get back what you have lost. Mind you, this isn’t real money. This is a totally virtual currency, which the game could restore with no fear of general inflation. But why accept responsibility for a flaw in software when you’re dealing with mere Villagers? I mean, who the ***k do they think they are?
This attitude is echoed in their completely absurd TOS — absurdity that begins with their coloring the font so it can’t be read. The basic thrust of the TOS: you have NO RIGHTS, villager. Get over it. And not just while you’re a villager, but “indefinitely as soon as the contract is accepted, and … even after you quit, are banished, removed, or if you leave the server/forum in any way.” (Gamer sites: Where lawyers for used car salesmen go to die….)
My advice to my son is not that he “play the game some more.” My advice is that try to find other places more eager to defend villagers that VillagerDefense. I’m sure he won’t follow that advice — being treated like a kid feels normal for a kid. But he shouldn’t feel there’s nothing wrong in what the barons of the site did. There is. Engineers especially should aspire to something more than company town justice. And gamers should reward those that do — by avoiding games that don’t.
i’m not sure where this goes
— actually, that’s not true, I know where this doesn’t go —
but I can’t imagine a day darker than this.
So many years,
So much lost.
So much at stake.
And staring me in the face
is what is most likely true:
What if we don’t.
The split within the GOP about transparency is growing.
Sixteen senators, led by Lamar Alexander (R-TN), have now objected to OSHA asking people submitting scientific studies in a proceeding about silica to declare their financial conflicts of interest.
Why? Says on Alexander aid: “The chilling effect the financial disclosure could have seems counter to the idea of robust inclusion of a diverse set of ideas and views to inform the rule-making.”
From my piece:
The “chilling effect?” Seriously? What’s the chill? That the shrinking violets of the cement industry will be too afraid to hire lobbyists to present their views about the (non-) dangers in inhaling silica?
Read more here.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives (all 400 of them!) will debate a resolution tomorrow to exercise NH’s power to call on Congress to convene an Article V convention. This is an important decision for New Hampshire. I just hope the confused rhetoric of the John Birch Society doesn’t confuse the issue.
Article V of our Constitution governs the procedures for amending the constitution. The original draft of that provision gave Congress the exclusive role in proposing amendments. On September 15, 1787, George Mason raised an obvious objection: What if Congress itself is the problem? That led the framers to add a second path in the amendment process: State legislatures can demand (if 2/3ds so vote) that Congress “call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Those proposals are only valid if 3/4ths of the states (38) ratify them.
The John Birch Society has long opposed this bit of the framers’ design. Their fear is that a “constitutional convention” could “run away” (which is code for the idea that it could change the constitution). That was the view expressed by one NH representative to a constituent in an email that I saw. As that representative wrote:
"If a constitutional convention is begun, the entire constitution is open for adding, removing, or changing amendments. Are you willing to risk the loss of some of your constitutional rights"
But this is just a confusion. Yes, of course, according to our tradition, a “constitutional convention” has the power to “alter or abolish” a Constitution. That was the premise of the Declaration of Independence. And that’s a good reason to fear such a beast.
But Article V has nothing to do with a “constitutional convention.” Its focus is a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” And if the English language has any meaning, a “Convention for proposing Amendments” is not a “convention with the power to adopt amendments” (i.e., a “constitutional convention”). It is instead a convention with a precisely limited scope: the power to “propose amendments.”
"But," I’ve been asked, "what if the convention proposed some crazy amendment?"
Fair question. Let’s do the math:
It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. That means the vote of one chamber in 13 states could block any amendment to the Constitution.
According to Wikipedia, there are 27 double Red states in America — meaning states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans — and 18 double Blue states in America — meaning states whose legislature is controlled by Democrats.
To fear some “crazy amendment” from the Right, you’d have to believe that we couldn’t find 13 chambers among the 18 double Blue states to vote against it. Or to fear some “crazy amendment” from the Left, you’d have to believe that they couldn’t find 13 chambers among the 27 double Red states to vote against it.
Those are possibilities, of course. But in my view, they less likely than world peace and an end to unemployment happening next Wednesday. Maybe, but it seems INCREDIBLY remote.
On the other hand, what isn’t incredibly remote is the possibility that our government will fail if we don’t find a way to address the system of corruption that now infects it. That, in my view, isn’t a hypothetical. That is a certainty.
The call for an Article V convention is supported by sane souls on the Right (see Convention of the States). It is supported by sane souls on the Left (see Wolf-PAC). (Not that either side of that divide would necessarily agree with my characterization of the other, but that’s my view).
It’s my hope that New Hampshire will join this mix.
After all, the New Hampshire Constitution expressly protects the right to revolution. The power to propose amendments, by contrast, is pretty tame standing next to that express guarantee. If any state should understand the difference, New Hampshire certainly should.
In which Niemoller, Aaron, and Jamie Raskin all make an appearance.
ONE OF THE GREAT BEAUTIES OF THE DIGITAL ERA IS TO LIBERATE SPONTANEOUS CREATIVITY - IT MIGHT BE A CHAOTIC SPACE OF FREE ASSOCIATION SOMETIMES BUT THE CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE OF DIGITAL RE-MEDIATION IS ENORMOUSLY LIBERATING.
WE DON’T FEEL THE LEAST ALIENATED BY THIS;
APPROPRIATION AND RECONTEXTUALIZATION IS A LONG-STANDING BEHAVIOR THAT HAS JUST BEEN MADE EASIER AND MORE VISIBLE BY THE UBIQUITY OF INTERNET. IN A FEW WORDS:
WE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT FAIR USE OF OUR MUSIC, AND WE CAN ONLY ENCOURAGE A NEW COPYRIGHT POLICY THAT PROTECTS FAIR USE AS MUCH AS EVERY CREATORS’ LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.
PHOENIX on the right to remix”
from their blog.
Bravo. This, in the end, is the only “victory” that matters, because copyright is for artists.
One year ago today, I presented “We the People, and the Republic We Must Reclaim” at TED. 1.2 million views later, I’m celebrating in three great ways.
Thanks to everyone for the incredible feedback on the talk, and the endless help to spread these ideas — by TED of course, but by many others too.
Here again is the TED talk:
Hey TransUnion: Exactly why do I need to “click” to protect my ID on your service? Shouldn’t you be doing the clicking, if you’re going to be handling all that personal data of mine?
This morning, the world learned of the passing of legendary folk singer Pete Seeger. Take a look at this letter from Seeger to President Kennedy in March of 1961. Seeger was facing trial for contempt of Congress after refusing to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. As a fellow Harvard classmate, Seeger was appealing to the President for help.
(From the White House Central Name File, Box 2513, JFK Library)
Yup. This is all about that video I made. This whole thing is wonderful...