Sure Astrid. We’re approaching digital infrastructure as critical infrastructure, so referring to the engineering of safer systems (for society - in reference to a book by that title), even if engineering refers to software code
3 Likes
Hi Kelsie – replying to this a bit later but absolutely impressed with this take and research!
I’m interested in the panopticon from a perspective of fear and fear based mechanisms of control that I believe are actually misjudged about the pitfalls of the DAO. Ultimately, the panopticon concept as composed by Jeremy Bentham, to me, is a mechanism designed around fear of the mind. A threat to both physical and phycological safety. I’m not sure this is truly the effects of algorithmic governance, nor does its design intend fear or threats of safety to manage behavior. That is the core of the panopticon concept to me: that it rules the psychology of the mind with theatres (physical architecture and ‘costumed’ officers) of power and control.
I believe algorithmic governance is more so gamification of governance and less of a panopticon. With the more threatening panopticon being Big Tech and the diminishing of global data sovereignty (but I digress). In practice, I find algorithmic governance on the user as more of a bug in the code effect. X did not equal Z, or you must do X to achieve Z. This is gamified behavior with little impact on feelings of fear and in practice creates negative or positive incentives toward behavior training in that particular environment or application.
Mechanisms of fear for power and to achieve behavioral ends are unethical and totalitarian. Algorithmic governance, not extending to offline governance, appears more like a social contract – if we have to connect it to a theory of governance. “I know and agree to the game I’m about to play”. And where, in the DAO, users, even with rules and reputational engagement, are still owners and creators of their DAO ecosystem – which is a fundamental difference that I believe can safeguard against threats to autonomy. Nonetheless, the panopticon serves as a concept to build away from and I am hopeful DAO organizers can use this as a reminder of what not to be.
Hope that adds something to this conversation!
Note: I was looking for research articles that connect social contract theory with algorithmic governance or gamification. I could not find many, but maybe this is a research topic to explore.
2 Likes
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with this piece Valerie!
I agree with you that Bentham was referring to the ultimate panopticon as self-censorship.
My goal in this piece was not to argue that a DAO is a panopticon but to provide a thought provoking conversation starter with decentralised technology communities to avoid this possibility becoming a reality.
DAOs are a fantastic site for further study of algorithmic governance and useful design and evaluation lenses are most welcome! I think there is a long way to go to “knowing algorithms”. As some say, transparency is not legibility.
1 Like
Thank you for this response!
I had written a blog post in 2020 titled “Taking Humans From the Weakest Link to Becoming the Strongest First Line of Defense” because humans are generally considered to be the weakest point in any security perimeter by most cybersecurity experts. Further, one of the main aspects of “cybersecurity” that is first taught in cybersecurity programs is the notion that “all operating elements” are aspects of cybersecurity from the physical lock on a building to the HVAC systems that cool the server rooms. In that context, thinking of blockchains as “digital security for the digital and physical world” is a much more appropriate perspective than to look at blockchain technology as simply securing the back-end of digital infrastructure.
I would be interested to know if you see DAOs as having more potential for danger than for good considering the education levels of the populations interacting with the DAOs at the user-level vs. the motivations of those with more voting weight at the head of the DAOs? Has your research changed how you view this if it is not a 50/50 chance for a net positive or net negative outcome?
2 Likes