Fun fact: "The Tragedy Of the Commons" is a hoax created by the white nationalist Garrett Hardin to justify stealing land from colonized people and moving it from collective ownership, "rescuing" it from the inevitable tragedy by putting it in the hands of a private owner, who will care for it properly, thanks to "rational self-interest":
@pluralistic Great points, Cory. A couple of my economics professors at UMass actually worked with / studied under Elinor Ostrom, and you’re absolutely right about Garrett Hardin and about the so-called ‘tragedy’ of the commons—my most recent microeconomics term paper was actually on this topic!!
It seems to me that most people misunderstand the ‘tragedy’ of the commons as a natural consequence of ‘human nature’. What the tragedy of the commons describes is in fact a coordination problem in which “self-interested individuals acting independently deplete a common property resource, lowering the payoffs of all” (Bowles & Halliday, 2022). The idea is theoretically sound; however, the crucial part that almost everyone misses is that it only holds true when certain institutional conditions are met (e.g., no enforceable social norms) and certain preferential assumptions are made (e.g., self-regarding preferences). In reality, we live in a social world filled with social norms and people who have other-regarding (not just self-regarding) preferences, so the idea doesn’t really hold up.
Based on what I’ve read/learned from Elinor Ostrom, Juan-Camilo Cárdenas, and other experts, it’s my understanding that community governance prevents overexploitation of natural resources in two intertwined ways. First, by reducing the scope of conflict over the distribution of gains; and second, by addressing whatever reduced conflict remains through democratically agreed-upon procedural rules of justice, both of which are foundational upon local and active participation. Community governance removes the disconnect that results from a discrepancy between resource use and resource governance, and allows local knowledges to be put into practice. Following these processes can generate equilibrium outcomes that are not only Pareto superior but also more fair.
@kapy@pluralistic as a Project Manager and systems guy I love how you summed this up. Local people, local resources, issues escalate less, system is more sustainable.
@Npars01@pluralistic and „independent“ central banks, Eurozone debt rules and the infamous German „Schuldenbremse“ (debt brake): Elected politicians are not able (or willing) to handle public finance in a „responsible“ way. Therefore institutions and rules have to be installed to prevent them from using public money for things like universal free healthcare, tuition free college, affordable housing, Green energy, high-quality public transport and so on.
I love this coining of “economism” for the way it connotes religious belief in the tenets of economics. I’d like to read the essay that ties economism to extractive capitalism.
I learnt a lot of new to me UK economic history from just a single wikipedia page. Once the common folk lost access to their land/means of production they were royally screwed over and turned into wage slaves for capital.All this so the gentry could grow more with imported fertilizer (guano) than a primitive crop rotation would yield
Worstead wool is a reaction to free range sheep herding being replaced by padlocks where the soil provided just the right nutrients to produce soft wool. Here too the commoners lost access to the "good" soil.
@pluralistic I learned about the tragedy of the commons in economics classes at university. Strangely enough, none of these neoliberal fuckers said anything about the background and alternatives.
I`m pretty sure some economics departments are more ideologically blind/stuck, than most religious institutions.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Get that? If control over a key resource is diffused among the people who rely on it, then (Garrett claims) those people will all behave like selfish assholes, overusing and undermaintaining the commons. It's only when we let someone own that commons and charge rent for its use that (Hardin says) we will get sound management.
By that logic, Google should be the internet's most competent and reliable manager. After all, the company used its access to the capital markets to buy control over the internet, spending billions every year to make sure that you never try a search-engine other than its own, thus guaranteeing it a 90% market share:
Google seems to think it's got the problem of deciding what we see on the internet licked. Otherwise, why would the company flush $80b down the toilet with a giant stock-buyback, and then do multiple waves of mass layoffs, from last year's 12,000 person bloodbath to this year's deep cuts to the company's "core teams"?
When Google decided to prioritize shopping site results over informative discussions and other possible matches, the entire internet shifted its focus to producing affiliate-link-strewn "reviews" that would show up on Google's front door:
This was catnip to the kind of sociopath who a) owns a hedge-fund and b) hates journalists for being pain-in-the-ass, stick-in-the-mud sticklers for "truth" and "facts" and other impediments to the care and maintenance of a functional reality-distortion field. These dickheads started buying up beloved news sites and converting them to spam-farms, filled with garbage "reviews" and other Google-pleasing, affiliate-fee-generating nonsense.
(These sites were vulnerable to acquisition in large part thanks to Google, whose dominance of ad-tech lets it cream 51 cents off every ad dollar and whose mobile monopoly lets it steal 30 cents off every in-app subscriber dollar):
Now, the spam on these sites didn't write itself. To the chagrin of the tech/finance bros who bought up Sports Illustrated and other news sites, they still needed to pay actual human writers to produce plausible wordsalads.
This was a waste of money that could be better spent on reverse-engineering Google's ranking algorithm and getting pride-of-place on search results pages:
That's where AI comes in. Spicy autocomplete absolutely can't replace journalists. The planet-destroying, next-word-guessing programs from Openai and its competitors are incorrigible liars that require so much "supervision" that they cost more than they save in a newsroom:
But while a chatbot can't produce truthful and informative articles, it can produce bullshit - at unimaginable scale. Chatbots are the workers that hedge-fund wreckers dream of: tireless, uncomplaining, compliant and obedient producers of nonsense on demand.
That's why the capital class is so insatiably horny for chatbots. Chatbots aren't going to write Hollywood movies, but studio bosses hyperventilated at the prospect of a "writer" that would accept your brilliant idea and diligently turned it into a movie.
You prompt an LLM in exactly the same way a studio exec gives writers notes. The difference is that the LLM won't roll its eyes and make sarcastic remarks about your brainwaves like "ET, but starring a dog, with a love plot in the second act and a big car-chase at the end":
Similarly, chatbots are a dream come true for a hedge fundie who ends up running a beloved news site, only to have to fight with their own writers to get the profitable nonsense produced at a scale and velocity that will guarantee a high Google ranking and millions in "passive income" from affiliate links.
One of the premier profitable nonsense companies is Advon, which helped usher in an era in which sites from Forbes to Money to USA Today create semi-secret "review" sites that are stuffed full of badly researched top-ten lists for products from air purifiers to cat beds:
Advon swears that it only uses living humans to produce nonsense, and not AI. This isn't just wildly implausible, it's also belied by easily uncovered evidence, like its own employees' Linkedin profiles, which boast of using AI to create "content":
It's not true. Advon uses AI to produce its nonsense, at scale. In an excellent, deeply reported piece for Futurism, Maggie Harrison Dupré brings proof that Advon replaced its miserable human nonsense-writers with tireless chatbots:
Dupré describes how Advon's ability to create botshit at scale contributed to the enshittification of clients from Yoga Journal to the LA Times, "Us Weekly" to the Miami Herald.
All of this is very timely, because this is the week that Google finally bestirred itself to commence downranking publishers who engage in "site reputation abuse" - creating these SEO-stuffed fake reviews with the help of third parties like Advon:
(Google's policy only forbids site reputation abuse with the help of third parties; if these publishers take their nonsense production in-house, Google may allow them to continue to dominate its search listings):
Zuckerberg's insight was that he could make billions by assembling dossiers of compromising, sensitive personal information on half the world's population without consent, but only if he kept costs down by failing to safeguard the data and the systems for exploiting it. It's like he figured out that if he accumulated enough oily rags, he could extract so much low-grade oil that he could grow rich, but only if he didn't shell out for fire-suppression:
Now Zuckerberg and the wealthy, powerful monsters who seized control over our commons are getting a comeuppance. The weak countermeasures they created to maintain the minimum levels of quality to maintain their platforms as viable, going concerns are being overwhelmed by AI.
This was a totally foreseeable outcome: the history of the internet is a story of bad actors who upended the assumptions built into our security systems by automating their attacks, transforming an assault that wouldn't be economically viable into a global, high-speed crime wave:
But it is possible for a community to maintain a commons. This is something Hardin could have discovered by studying actual commons, instead of inventing imaginary histories in which commons turned tragic. As it happens, someone else did exactly that: Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom:
Ostrom described how commons can be wisely managed, over very long timescales, by communities that self-governed. Part of her work concerns how users of a commons must have the ability to exclude bad actors from their shared resources.
When that breaks down, commons can fail - because there's always someone who thinks it's fine to shit in the well rather than walk 100 yards to the outhouse.
Enshittification is the process by which control over the internet moved from self-governance by members of the commons to acts of wanton destruction committed by despicable, greedy assholes who shit in the well over and over again.
It's not just the spammers who take advantage of Google's lazy incompetence, either.
Take "copyleft trolls," who post images using outdated Creative Commons licenses that allow them to terminate the CC license if a user makes minor errors in attributing the images they use:
The first copyleft trolls were individuals, but these days, the racket is dominated by a company called Pixsy, which pretends to be a "rights protection" agency that helps photographers track down copyright infringers.
In reality, Pixsy is committed to helping copyleft trolls entrap innocent Creative Commons users into paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for images licensed for free use. Just as Advon upends the economics of spam and deception through automation, Pixsy has figured out how to send legal threats at scale, robolawyering demand letters that aren't signed by lawyers; the company refuses to say whether any lawyer ever reviews these threats:
This is shitting in the well, at scale. It's an online WMD, designed to wipe out the commons. Creative Commons has allowed millions of creators to produce a commons with billions of works in it, and Pixsy exploits a minor error in the early versions of CC licenses to indiscriminately manufacture legal land-mines, wantonly blowing off innocent commons-users' legs and laughing all the way to the bank:
We can have an online commons, but only if it's run by and for its users. Google has shown us that any "benevolent dictator" who amasses power in the name of defending the open internet will eventually grow too big to care, and will allow our commons to be demolished by well-shitters:
TOMORROW (May 10), 8AM: Science Fiction Research Association talk, "AI, copyright and creative workers’ labor rights"
Institute of Foreign Languages and Cultures building (Lossi 3, lobby)
TOMORROW (May 10), 3PM: A talk for hackers on seizing the means of computation
(University of Tartu Delta Centre, Narva 18, room 1037)
@pluralistic
I've been meaning to thank you for the referal to Kagi....
All the search and none of the noise. Like the rare moments when my tinitis takes a time out
@pluralistic I only heard about this Tragedy of the Commons just-so-story a few years ago. What I learned in high school in the UK was the historical reality of the Enclosure Acts in England. The landowning ruling class passed laws to steal land from the common folk (who couldn't vote or sit in Parliament) in order to profit from the lucrative wool industry.
@pluralistic Lovely article because it itches that scratch of global genocidal tech bros and the reason why neoclassicals endure. It’s all the money behind them.
@pluralistic One reason I found this a bit confusing is that Ostrom's views have been fairly orthodox in poli sci for 20+ years. And because common goods really are a form of market failure, and it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I worry that people who read only the first half might incorrectly view the entire exercise as illegitimate, when the real problem is that racists used common goods as an excuse to grift in the past.
Its kind of dumb that ppl still defend tragedy of the commons, and I used to but that changed since I've seen more upkeep coming in publicly owned spaces as opposed to privately owned ones. The thing that gets left out is the fact that private property can and often times will be left in disrepair because the only "rational self interest" the owner has is in money. Key example being landlords leaving their tenants home in disrepair and kicking the tenant out if they repair the problems themselves. The landlord could often times afford to call a contractor to fix the place, but won't because that would cost money and eat away at profits, and the tenant likely wouldn't have enough money to sue, yes u can sue of ur kicked out for calling a contractor to fix a problem u told the landlord about if the landlord doesn't do anything about it for a set period of time.
@pluralistic The biggest "commons" I know of is the ocean, and boy do I feel there is a tragedy there. If the ocean can be maintained by either way, to me that way has demonstrated its viability.
@pluralistic even more fantastic that it's rather easy to take a world where it's merely a hoax and turn it into one where it's a truth, self-fulfilling prophecy-style. Given you have some power and wealth at your disposal.
@pluralistic@mynameistillian And things like this will keep happening, and happening, and happening, with every new tech in ways we cannot foresee right now, until capitalism is either well and truly crippled or, preferably, ended outright.
@pluralistic That's fascinating thanks for sharing! I've predominantly used/heard Tragedy of the Commons in reference to unregulated capitalist stuff, or social behavior.
Really interesting to learn it has a very different philosophical root!