/32/ - Psychopolitics

How does this idea of social networks relate to the feedback-loop notion that is central to cybernetics?

The network depiction of flow (be it of information, capital, influence, etc.) can obviously be applied to a great deal of situations. Let's try to focus the transmission of information.

The article states that the internet is an example of a distributed network, but I would argue that it is in fact a decentralized one, albeit with a great many deal of nodes. The users may connect with anyone they want, but in order to do so they require a common platform (be it a social network, an imageboard or an IRC). Naturally, those in control of those platforms have some power over others. As technology becomes more accessible the options for communication grow at a geometric rate, making control of newly formed platforms (the user-created ones) harder. Thus, someone who would like to be in control would either need to make sure that new nodes are created inside an area they control, or they would have to have the creator of new platforms already under their influence.

This might be a bit confusing, so let me try to explain with examples. People can communicate in a great deal of ways on the internet, each with its limitations. Zuckerberg created a platform for people to share information that did not require anything but the most basic knowledge about computers, attracting individuals to use that platform. If before people used one platform to share pictures, another to share text, another to comment on videos, an another to chat online, now they could do all of those things in one place. He turned a decentralized aspect of the internet (social interaction) into a centralized one, and the distributed network that is internet as a whole became more decentralized. Now, with the existence of a node, the powers that be can much more easily control the flow of information, both by suppressing information they dislike and by promoting information that goes along their agenda. The more centralized a network is, the more vulnerable its components are to being controlled (both in an overt and a covert way). Of course, nothing of what I am saying is new.

This is not to say that the creation of nodes is necessarily a bad thing, because new nodes become alternatives to old ones (e.g. The Exodus), and as the nodes/users ration increases, the network becomes less and less centralized, both in the micro and macro scales. This is one of the fundamentally important things about 8chan: it allows nodes to be created within that platform, which, while not as free or decentralized as the creation of an independent platform, is still a great step above platforms that only allow the transfer of information in predetermined and strictly controlled ways (e.g. the m00t-created boards on halfchan).

In conclusion to my rambling, the three things that -in my opinion- individuals can do to prevent monopoly of power over the transfer of information on the internet are:
1-Prevent a sense of attachment to form in regards to the platform they are currently using. One must be ready to leave it all behind at a moment's notice as soon as it is discovered that the platform is becoming part of an effort to control the flow of data.
2-Make people less dependent on platforms, by teaching individuals about programming and other skills that allow them to transmit data without resorting to established "products".
3-Increase the node/user ratio, making sure that these new nodes are not subordinate to any other, and that their creators are doing so independently and with no hidden motives.

These are my two cents, I'm sure there are people here more qualified to discuss this.

>>630
>How does this idea of social networks relate to the feedback-loop notion that is central to cybernetics?

Cybernetics need not only apply to individual neurons. Any flow of information can be modeled, analyzed, dissected and hopefully understood thereby.

Feedback loops are not necessarily required in cybernetics. Feed forward networks are one such system whereby feedback loops are not required (depending on implementation, training, and use).

In a social network individuals makeup the nodes and messages / pictures / statuses etc. propagate across the network. A node may generate a signal of interest/value to other nodes and said signal may cause the individual to make posts in a similar vein to receive similar interest/reward.

The typical loop is Sense, Decide, Act, repeat. When Sensing an environment that has been modified by prior action one may formulate new decision based upon the prior decision, thus creating a feedback loop. Such systems can be applied nearly universally in reality to classify and understand reactive events. Even light filaments sense their voltage, decide to emit photons, and act to propagate heat and light (which can then change resistance of the filament, etc).

Social networks often provide a notification of reply feature that feeds back into the Sense, Decide, Act loop. Feedback in a social network can be a positive or negative thing, but the act of receiving feedback itself is typically experienced as a positive thing. This creates a positive feedback loop whereby interaction in the social network is incentivized spurning more interaction.

There are many other such feedback loops in social networks, some less immediate than others. Try learning to manipulate messaging via providing the (un)desired social incentives to subjects. Comment or interact with nodes that generate information you wish to propagate more, and shun/distract others away from undesired info sources. Often self-valuation of action in a social context is relative, so one can inflate interaction proportionate to others to boost esteem or increase interaction with all but the subject to lower esteem. This works best with multiple (sock puppet) social networking accounts / personas and applies both online and off.

Would like to see more discussion on this.

>>632
But at the same time, a decentralised network leads to some suppression of information, in the sense that not only do owners of local nodes still control the interactions of their subordinate nodes, but even the act of decentralising a network would inevitably lead to information asymmetry in the network.

The prime example is the schismatic nature of some boards on 8chan. /pol/, /leftypol/, /polpol/, you name it. In many cases, users prefer to use one board and thus their discussion, criticism, creativity, etc etc is lost on or severely limited to the communities on the other boards.

Therefore, I suggest point 4:
4-Spread out your interactions among many similar platforms rather than using only one.

This would make the internet look more like a distributed network I think.

>>613

Not sure if you can get your hands on it (torrent, or buying it), but a book called:

> Hidden Order - How Adaptation Builds Complexity by John H. Holland

goes deep into societal and economic organization, how a society functions and meets its economic demands, how they arise and evolve, and basic explanations with (dated) computer models and graphics.

Good 'quick' read if you like this sorta stuff.

>>1377

People are currently trying to create a distributed internet network (look at how the blockchain technology that bitcoin is based of is being utilized in other projects).

As far as nodes of control the book I mentioned
> Hidden Order - How Adaptation Builds Complexity by John H. Holland
has a short chapter talking about nodes of control and societal functioning.

One interesting point he brought up was systems of true demand need no actual controlling nodes. An example he used was how NYC (~22 million people) never really runs out of food, although there is no central node to import and designate food import and distribution - it still gets delivered with near perfect consistency.