8.20 Appendix 2: Towards Distributed Security, Based …
171
of the most astonishing complex systems in the world is our body’s immune system.
Even though we are bombarded every day by a myriad of viruses, bacteria and other
harmful agents, our immune system protects us pretty well for about 50–100 years.
Our immune system is probably more effective than any other protection system we
know. What is even more surprising is that, in contrast to our central nervous system,
the immune system is organized in a decentralized way. This is no coincidence.
It is well known that decentralized systems tend to be more resilient to disruptive
events. While targeted attacks or local disruptions can make a centralized system
fail, a decentralized system will usually survive such disruptions and recover. In
fact, this is the reason why the Internet is so robust.
37 So why don’t we protect
information systems using in-built “digital immune systems”?
38 This should also
entail a reputation system, which could serve as a kind of “social immune system”.
In the following, I will describe just a few aspects of how this might work.
8.20.1 Community-Based Moderation
Information exchange and communication on the Web have quickly changed. In
the beginning, there was almost no regulation in place. These were the days of the
“Wild Wild Web”, and people often did not respect human dignity and the rights of
companies when posting comments. However, one can see a gradual evolution of
self-governance mechanisms in open and participatory systems over time.
Early on, public comments in news forums were published without moderation. This led to a lot of low-quality content. Later, comments were increasingly
checked for their legality (and for their respect of human dignity) before they went
online. Then, it became possible to comment on comments. Now, comments are
rated by readers, and good ones get pushed to the top. The next logical step is to rate
commenters generally
39 and rate the quality of judgments of those who rate others.
Thus, we can see the gradual evolution of a self-governing system that constructively
channels free speech. Therefore, I believe that it is possible to encourage responsible
use of the Internet, mainly through self-organization.
The great majority of malicious behavior can probably be controlled using crowdbased mechanisms. Such approaches include reporting inappropriate content and
ranking user-generated content based on suitable reputation mechanisms. To handle
the remaining, complicated cases, one can use a system of community moderators and complaints procedures. Such community moderators would be determined
based on their performance in satisfying lower-level community expectations (the
“local culture”), while staying within the framework set by higher-level principles
(such as laws and constitutional principles). In this way, community moderators
would complement our legal framework, and most problems could be solved in a
37 Albert et al. [28].
38 See, for example, Harmer et al. [29].
39 Such ratings are sometimes called “karma points”.
171
of the most astonishing complex systems in the world is our body’s immune system.
Even though we are bombarded every day by a myriad of viruses, bacteria and other
harmful agents, our immune system protects us pretty well for about 50–100 years.
Our immune system is probably more effective than any other protection system we
know. What is even more surprising is that, in contrast to our central nervous system,
the immune system is organized in a decentralized way. This is no coincidence.
It is well known that decentralized systems tend to be more resilient to disruptive
events. While targeted attacks or local disruptions can make a centralized system
fail, a decentralized system will usually survive such disruptions and recover. In
fact, this is the reason why the Internet is so robust.
37 So why don’t we protect
information systems using in-built “digital immune systems”?
38 This should also
entail a reputation system, which could serve as a kind of “social immune system”.
In the following, I will describe just a few aspects of how this might work.
8.20.1 Community-Based Moderation
Information exchange and communication on the Web have quickly changed. In
the beginning, there was almost no regulation in place. These were the days of the
“Wild Wild Web”, and people often did not respect human dignity and the rights of
companies when posting comments. However, one can see a gradual evolution of
self-governance mechanisms in open and participatory systems over time.
Early on, public comments in news forums were published without moderation. This led to a lot of low-quality content. Later, comments were increasingly
checked for their legality (and for their respect of human dignity) before they went
online. Then, it became possible to comment on comments. Now, comments are
rated by readers, and good ones get pushed to the top. The next logical step is to rate
commenters generally
39 and rate the quality of judgments of those who rate others.
Thus, we can see the gradual evolution of a self-governing system that constructively
channels free speech. Therefore, I believe that it is possible to encourage responsible
use of the Internet, mainly through self-organization.
The great majority of malicious behavior can probably be controlled using crowdbased mechanisms. Such approaches include reporting inappropriate content and
ranking user-generated content based on suitable reputation mechanisms. To handle
the remaining, complicated cases, one can use a system of community moderators and complaints procedures. Such community moderators would be determined
based on their performance in satisfying lower-level community expectations (the
“local culture”), while staying within the framework set by higher-level principles
(such as laws and constitutional principles). In this way, community moderators
would complement our legal framework, and most problems could be solved in a
37 Albert et al. [28].
38 See, for example, Harmer et al. [29].
39 Such ratings are sometimes called “karma points”.