 which gets complex with apologies to speakers in the middle of this. This is the build OGM call on August 10th, 2021. So so it's it's, you know, I accidentally kind of bumped into to the the systems that you've kind of the systems we perambulated around the brain or notion or massive wiki are flexible and semi-structured. And then I bumped into this use case where there's a lot of process and and fairly complex structure that represents looking at market one space that that represents flows to not just static static data. So so, you know, as the intake box goes out and says, oh, wow, look, they just posted a Washington Post article. Oh, wow, look, they just posted a our world and data link. Um, something in there is going to go, ha, OK, our world and data, this view. I'm just going to keep collecting every day for the rest of my life. And it's a kind of, you know, there's we we we kind of because of our heritage, we've got kind of this book view of mentality, right, where a link goes to like, oh, wow, I can just go in a library and pull this book off. And then this book is going to be there for 100 years. You know, it's not going to change or whatever. But nowadays you post an our world and data link. And it's like this thing is changing all the time. And your view of it has to be that flow, not just a static thing. And then you have to log snapshots of that, right? So when the evidence collector looked at our world and data, she saw this and that and this is how she processed that and turned it into a narrative. But a week later, a month later, or something like that, our world and data, that that whole view has changed, right? And so do we do we go back and annotate the original exhibit? Do we create an exhibit flow, a flow exhibit? I don't know. In a strange way, this is almost like an organic crawl of the web. It's like following, you know, following the stream of of news and stuff like that and going back and fetching the pieces and storing them. It's a little bit like what the archive is doing, but but only around particular feeds and so forth. Also, in with more rich context and and semantic understanding of of what it means, right? The archive, so the archive is cool. It's a stream, but it doesn't really have good semantic context of the evolution of the stream over time. Exactly. We need that too. And I was going to suggest that the intake, the people who submit stuff might also already be adding some metadata, some hashtags and some other stuff, because just that's going to be easy. And then I can come back in after and explain, I had an idea long ago called in keto fast and slow. I was thinking of Aikido and link management and what that would look like. But another role in your thing might actually be curators. Who pluck carefully judiciously from the flow. Because what happens when you get five people or five hundred people who start doing what you just described is it turns into like way too much info for most people again. And so I think I think that either the dashboard or a couple of judicious points of view into the information are really essential. And and when, you know, yesterday, the IPCC released the sixth annual assessment report and it's like shits hitting the fan. And there were fifth there were I saw a dozen articles. There were likely, you know, thousands of articles about that event, which is the best analysis. And what are the things to look at? What do you call out from the flood from the from the flow? That would be the responsibility of one or many different curators who are looking into this using the same exact tools or other tools to storytell or dashboard eyes or something like that. That'd be really cool. Mark Antoine. Yeah, I'd like I maybe I'd like to go back to your system. What is good first, the idea of stocks to flow, as you know, is dear to my heart. And I'm glad to see you work on that. The the difficult part, of course, is going from. Links and we're speaking about the issues of versioning. And yes, they're real and they're important and they're not solved. There are attempts. That's one of the reasons I'm so interested in distributed web. It does understand the mutability better than classical. But the really difficult part is going from there to claims. What claim was made here, like you say, pieces of evidence and pieces of what's what's evidence? What's the claim? What's how is the claim supported? How is the claim interpreted? And this is really where it gets tricky. Is that many people have different interpretations of the same sentence? And how do you identify those? How do you distinguish those? That's core of the and I don't trust machines to do that or at least not fully. So, yeah, and this is really what I those are narratives in the system. I'm narratives are supposed to be kind of value, you know, value less or judge judgment less condensations of what what the the original people thought they were saying and what the, you know, the people who've gone through perception of it are thinking it means the same. Why judgmentless? Why objective? Because because this is just intake, the intake part, it's doing light sense making. So you you want to start the signing something like, you know, a statement like, well, my kid has been going to school for for a month and they're not they haven't got sick yet. I don't know why we wear masks, right? You you take that apart and into a couple narratives. And it's in in in the intake part. You don't you don't care too much what the narratives are, right? Covid isn't that bad is a narrative there. That masks are bad masks impinge on my freedom. Maybe things like that. So all of that stuff are, you know, narratives and you want to have the evidence for why that why people how that narrative appears later in sense making you can start to make value judgments or context, you know, apply context. You know, why would somebody say masks are bad? Why, you know, why what what is our overall recommendation? Should people wear masks or not? Based on the narratives we've seen and the evidence there is. I'm not sure that the intake people will merely be intake people. I think a lot of them will have strong opinions and be coming in with a lot of point of view and metadata and whatever else. And we'll be going straight to curating their point of view or what not. I don't know that you'll have a clean separation of roles. I guess that's what I'm saying. Where intake people are just doing neutral intake. Yeah, my hope would be to train people to have clean separation of roles. So evidence collectors are not investigators. Investigators are not saying where Jack's work on gamification might be relevant. My work. This is where Jack's work on gamification of roles may be relevant. One sorry, Michael. I'll just finish. One thing that worries me is the notion of narrative. I'm not sure I get it perfectly. And it seems there's a lot of overlap between implied claim. And subculture, a subculture is a coherent or more or less coherent set of implied claims shared by a subculture. You know, and are you at which level are you looking? And I'm not sure there's a clear boundary between them. And this is this is something I'm trying to pry apart right now in my work on what are the fundamental objects of this. We've been talking about the fundamental objects of this three hours a week in CDL. I do invite you to come and join that work. It's the canonical debate lab. They want to create the database of the canonical form of claim. So we have this we can look. OK, this is a claim. These are the premises. These are the insured conclusion. And when in the week, those calls. Oh, sorry, it's it's in an hour. It's at 11 on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday. Awesome. Thank you. You might have a link of where to go. I mean, that or I would love to. I'll put it in the chat. Well, you go. Well, and and do you guys know also about credco or overlap at all with credco? Credibility coalition. No, I don't know this one. No. They're a pretty big entity that I think is that you would get a kick out of all. How is the link to them? So I'm just like really loving what's being discussed here. And and thinking. Oh, thanks, Steve. The the thought of how to, you know, hearing hearing the notion of designated curators and specific roles. I am concerned about it and it implies a level of kind of, you know, top down organization and and, you know, somebody knowing the way that is seems seems a little difficult to expect of an organic process involving a large group. I mean, more power to that happening if it really does. But but a little bit of building, building a methodology to allow the the observer to distill the flow that they're seeing. I mean, if you have as as we have referred to it in one of the conversations above above the fire hose, which is a human curated, attributed, attributed thing. There's the the hydrant of like all the feeds that anybody finds that might be useful, that, you know, many people are looking through and and yield some of the the human posted things or somebody to say, hey, this feed is really great. I give my imprimatur to this feed. You know, that that that that managing the hydrant is is a tall order. Let let that be a hydrant. Then the fire hose gets human curated and you and the attributes that are given to the things out of the fire hose, which are human made tags, human made comments. And, you know, all these all these attributed things give you the ability. I mean, I think he said this eloquently before to say, oh, I trust this person. And, you know, by reading their comments and seeing their tags, I trust this person. And that helps me know to trust this original source, perhaps. But the filtering to be able to individually choose to say, I want to see all the things on this subject that have been commented on or highlighted by this person. I think that has to be in the end users' hands, as opposed to something that some government determines. I mean, you know, some many government determines, oh, Pete's in charge of that. You know, Mark influence in charge of that. You know, let it emerge and and and have differing, you know, Judy might say like I trust Pete more than Mark Antoine and Jerry might say I trust Mark Antoine more than Pete, you know, on that subject. And and like, let me let me filter so I can can see based on that. Yeah, so just want to shade that difference. Love that, Judy. I was just going to comment that it seems we might have a multiplicity of roles and and I'm reluctant to label them to abruptly. But I think we've talked before about curation being a needed skill set in a variety of areas. So maybe that means that we have an expertise group Perenn Guild, but a different name that our curators and their people who have expertise in literally abstracting critical elements from discussions. And that could be in addition to the full open commentary that Michael's talking about, because we want that open commentary which can be left as is so you can react to what Pete said or what Mark Antoine said or remember, but also is raw material for curators to collect key elements. I'm just thinking the digestion of the full dialogue is difficult as we see in our OGM response lists. And for many individuals, that role of selective curation I think would be trusted. And I think the curator just says curation comment Joe Blow and then they put whatever they want to put. If you don't like what Joe Blow puts next time, don't read him. Read what Mark Antoine puts. So I think we can blend the two, but conceptually, I like the notion of having both the continuing open discourse and some level of checking. Let me share screen for a second, just to show Linkito and explain Linkito really quickly because I think it fits here really well. So apparently at food camp 2004, I had this idea called Linkito and I had this sort of complementary things about Linkito fast and slow. And the idea was these days we have a lot of information coming toward us really fast, how do we deal with it? And so Linkito slow and and and there's a whole bunch of interesting and I think in many cases, nonsense articles about people are incapable of multi multitasking. We should only always focus on one thing at a time, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so for me, it was like, hey, this is just a polarity to manage. And we should have a tool that allows us to go to set a dial from fast to slow. Slow is there's a whole bunch of focus apps that basically take away, you know, on writer, self control, focus writer, dark room, clutter, cloak, dark copy, right, monkey. These are probably mostly gone. But these are the apps that let you focus only on your writing and they mask everything or they even make your system, not show you the browser for X amount of time or whatever. And that was it was a way of slowing things down and making it so that you can actually focus. The interesting part here, I think in this conversation is Linkito fast, which, and here I had this, this vision of Bruce Lee standing in the field being attacked by multiple people and dealing with them each efficiently, right. And the idea here is we are standing in the info torrent and each of us is standing in 1500 different streams of information that we're filtering. Some of us are busy just drowning in it. Some of us are actually still pretty good at managing it, but it's a lot of manual labor to do. And the idea of Linkito was, hey, here comes a new article and it's not just I want to forward it into the stream to be processed. And I'm just an information dude. It's I think Judy needs to see this. I think Michael needs to see this. I want to put this over into the matter most chat of this channel. Basically, there's a whole bunch of forwarding, maybe even with personal notes that need to happen at that instant. There's some meta tagging that might need to happen at that instant. How do I do that? Either with machine learning on the spot or automatically with, hey, these are some tags that you usually add to articles like this. Would you like to just click, click, click? Yes, yes, yes. And then a couple of other things. So what does and I put Linkito, I just added I just connected it to a thought I had before that I realized I had. But this idea of power tools for mavens, which is connected under under mavens. And I already also have power tools for connectors. This is the people who connect humans. And so what we're missing is like really good power tools for those kinds of people. And that for me is the general category of what a user of this kind of system would kind of be into. And I'll leave a link to Linkito in the chat here. But but it seems like giving people a lot more power and some machine learning and some capacity to do multiple things with the income incoming stream. And then, you know, like Bruce Lee, you're busy, hashtag forward, comment, host on LinkedIn, shebeta, shebeta. And it would know where you put these things. So you could go back and say, oh, this article, I did these three things to, right? So the power tool would let you track back. And then when you go and look at that person's profile in your contact system, it would say, oh, you have you have been sending this stream of stuff to them over time, it would sort of be able to log it backwards, etc. So I will I will pause there. Michael and Judy, you still have your hands up. Do you want to know that was just a neglect on my part? Sorry. And so I'll turn it over to Mark Antoine. Um, Michael, you raised the issue of trust, and it's a fascinating issue. It's a complex issue. I'm very, very interested in going one layer below trust, which is understanding, which do we you know, something I'm worried about a lot is when I make a claim, you make a claim. Are we even talking about the same thing? Most of the time, we aren't. And being able to track language usage, you know, if I say climate change, I already mean anthropogenic climate change. So don't even bother me with the natural cycle, right? But it's a shorthand. The climate cycle as climate change is a perfectly legitimate thing that also exists. And I just choose to define the term otherwise. It's a shorthand. And different communities have different definitions in different contexts. And for me, what's both fascinating and challenging is the question of context. And what do we mean by context? We mean a subculture. Do we mean this document or this conversation? That's micro contexts. Do we and when I'm quoting, that means I'm crossing contexts. Because the quote might be using a different vocabulary. In a subculture, this is the accepted meaning of this term and this community. So I'm really focusing on community because community means people who can negotiate meaning. You can say, you know, I'm using it this way. You're using it that way. Let's use this term. And we both know what we're talking about. It takes time. It takes work. It's a process, but that's valid. And then the trust issue becomes much easier to solve when you know you're talking about the same thing or and when you've done this alignment problem. But it's true that I don't. I'm kind of. Eliding or kind of refusing to tackle or punting. I'm really punting the what is a subculture conversation by saying, you know, I'm negotiating terms within a community. And this community claims to be working within that subculture, and hence claims that its vocabulary is representative of that subculture. And if another community claims to have the same subculture and the vocabulary is not allowing them, OK, there's work to do. And and then you have vocabular alignment at that level. So for me, but is that good enough? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand how trust and meaning are negotiated both at the individual level and at the collective level. And that's that really matters, because Jerry, you were describing, you know, I'm sending this tag or this link to this person or Judith was describing this and Judith said, I'm putting it on this channel. Well, the channels are kind of. Proxies for subgroups of people, you know. And the whole point of scaling for me is going beyond the people who know beyond the people who have subscribed to this thing beyond the people who you know are interested in this, but to be able to define a community of people who could be interested in that a bit abstractly so we can start weaving a global web of knowledge so that anybody who's interested in this and registered interest in the broad topic can become aware of claims in around about that topic. That's something I'm looking at. And what that means, it's beyond trust. It's it's beyond negotiation, which is individual. But the question is, can I take the individual alignment operations and extend them to global terminology and and trust at another level? Anyway, that's sorry, I'm trying to establish definition distinctions, but also how do we know the boundaries of a community and what do we mean by community and context and subculture? There's so many different boundaries. And can I get away with proxies for the big, vague, fuzzy boundaries like subcultures, which are important. And just to add to that before turning over to Judy, the really interesting scenarios to me are those that mix and mingle very different communities. So so two groups that have completely opposite political stances might take the same story and read it completely differently. We don't get that very much. And how might they be able to talk about this together in the same space as as parallel sense making exercises that allow them to talk more about what's happening? I think that's super, super interesting so that we don't think of community as the boundary of the information space or the exercise that we're doing, but rather there might be multiple communities or frames coexisting in the same space. That gets like really, really interesting to me, Judy. I was just going to comment based on a book I read this week for book club Pale Rider, which is about the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918. Really, really an excellent book and particularly the last section about since then. But one of the things that that was a kind of a throwaway comment in the history of multiple plagues over the centuries was that when there was a significant population decrease, that affected consumption of oxygen, which also then led to less development of land and reforestation that occurred naturally because people moved about. And what happened then was that the reforestation, the trees sequestered so much CO2 that it actually cooled the planet by several degrees, the opposite of what we're seeing now. And I'm not aware whether anyone has actually postulated that reforestation and changing of development patterns might be a more rapid way to address current climate change than some of the things that are being proposed. I'm not saying you take away the human element because that has to be addressed, but I'd never read that particular series of facts in terms of the effect of the increase of forestation space and the effect on global temperature. One of the many good things that forests do is they increase or decrease the albedo of the Earth. Albedo is basically the Earth's reflectivity, keeping sort of bouncing sunlight out and converting sunlight, obviously, into capturing carbon and moisture and sugars and whatever else. But I think there's I think there's a bunch of work on this. And Mark is saying in the chat that that, yes, it's been being proposed. Well, they were just tying it to the fact that the pandemic significantly reduced population worldwide in the major pandemics. But it was also and I don't remember the particular element, but the trees actually the roots of the trees to create some things into the soil also that alter the soil chemistry in a constructive way. Yeah. Also, I'm looking at the major fires like the Dixie Fire in California is not California's second largest fire ever. Doesn't how often can a state have the largest fire ever? Doesn't each fire create a natural firebreak? Isn't that fuel at some point consumed and takes like 10, 20 years to grow back to some level where it's like fire worthy again? And can't we it doesn't that sort of help stop the next big fires? Or is there simply that much lumber in California that that it's impossible? But but similarly, like, like that's a that's a different way of looking at the pandemic and who's been infected and all that, too. But people move around a lot more than trees. There is that much timber in California to burn. Really, you can't like like, but these are huge. These are like you can see that like this this hunk is now like. Yeah, a plop of fire map or whatever. And California is really big. It has lots of lots of stuff to burn. Full of trees. Don and the one of the clout that there's a with a pandemic. There's a classic mathematical modeling, which has a bunch of simplifications. But it's called the SIR model. So there's susceptible, infected, recovered. So you're not susceptible if you've recovered. So they actually model at that one. Yep. Where does that pass? I'm Jerry, I'm interested to go back to kind of where you started this call. What? What's the goal of your challenges for Jerry's brain? What? How would the world change when 100 people have taken up the challenge and and built a dozen or two dozen tools that all all work together? So several things. One is the brain for 20 to 23 years of existence has always had this uptake problem, not enough people stick with the interface. The interface looks like Windows 95. It hasn't really been modernized, but it's also too much for a lot of people. For me, it's like just fine, perfect. I'm like a little duck in water. I took to it immediately, but I'm weird. So one question is what might we do to get a lot more people creating shared context? So that goes back to the other question I asked, which is what small things could we add to Pinterest and Instagram and factor? What tiny things could we add to very popular tools that would get them building contexts like that? Second, the second major issue is, hey, the brain is only one kind of visualization, the power of multiple visualizations applied to a body of work together in some form of elegant synchrony or coordination seems to me to be really evident. Nobody's doing it. All the tools are little silos, completely different interface written in a different environment. What if they all ran inside of JupyterLab, for example? Like JupyterLab lets you execute Python scripts. What if we rewrote every one of these visualizations in Python so that they could all exist in a big JupyterLab Blackboard? I don't know, but JupyterLab is open source. It's really interesting. There might be some groovy things there. Then a third piece is that our ability to share and visualize what we see partly, like the evidence processing engine that I'm envisioning from the project you're proposing, Pete, from EES, feels to me like a newsreader. It feels to me like it looks still like a newsreader with some hashtags with some other kind of stuff. I'm like, awesome. What if all of that were being processed into stories, arguments, other sorts of things? What if automatically a lot of it was being analyzed into claims and the things that Mark Antoine has been working on under the hood so that we could make those connections as well? And then what does a conversation look like at that point? And then I would go back to William Buckley versus Baldwin, James Baldwin. I would go back and I would just parse all that text for these kinds of arguments and say, here's what was being said and what was based on, here's what that conversation looks like with a set of new tools and stories and arguments, for example. That would make a really interesting kind of analysis of what was happening. And then quite possibly in future debates, we might actually have debates where people imagine your favorite debate society or the Oxford debate, where people are actually manipulating and sharing arguments and information. And it's not just Buckley has his visualization and Baldwin has his, but rather that they can contrast things, they can sort of move in the space together. So I think that there's a kind of thinking literacy that's right in front of us that we haven't done yet. So I think that we might be able to sort of make better sense of the world and make better decisions, which is sort of one of the goals of OGM, if this thing existed. And the goal of, hey, everybody, here's a sourdough starter called Jerry's Brain that happens to come out of one tool from one obsessive guy. Let's riff on that to see if we can't invent our way toward all the different interesting piece parts that would be needed to create this shared thinking space. Because it's not just that there's a better UI that lets you mix tools, because we also need a whole bunch of machine learning to sit there next to us and make things easier, faster, better, make better connections. We also need shared data that's independent from the tools so that there's this data layer. All those things, I think, are needed for this thing to actually be really fruitful and useful for society. Does that help? Yeah, that's great. And I feel like that's the next layer down. A lot of those feel like the headline for all of that was unlocks even better tools and processes. Well, to make better decisions, so we don't run into global conflict and so we solve the climate change crisis and all of that. Where are you? Hold on, Pete Pinner, sorry. The world has changed because we make better decisions. We save mankind. We don't have to ship everybody off on starships to try to populate another rock. Because we're well on the way to widen ourselves off right now. So we make better decisions because we have better access to information, better story sharing, better, you know, better. So how do people make better decisions because of the tools and processes you've envisioned? Because it's not clear to me that, you know, you can give people really good tools and they still may not use them. So well, not only may not use them, but in fact, we'll actively reject them because of the other half of what OGM I've been trying to say is about, which is the rebuilding of trust, the reweaving of community, the recreating of spaces where people with different points of view might actually talk. Given the reality that some of those people are in there intentionally lying and creating misinformation because it really works or malinformation, right? So how do we actually operate together in that realistic world to make progress with ideas? And one of our problems is that people can repeat lies over and over and over again and we have no way of damping and slowing down the lies. And if we had a place where we said, hey, here's the series of six lies, the moment these six lies happen, it triggers a process or it shuts down that person's, you know, a megaphone or I don't know what, I don't know what. But how might we sort of do these things together? I'm interested in bad actors too. I'm extremely interested in bad actors. Maybe I'm a petrochemical company, I'm a carbon company and I use the power tools, the open source world is so generously created to do an even better job of pulling the wall over people's eyes. Entirely possible, entirely possible. And I'm really interested in what are the mechanisms for exposing that, highlighting that, circling that and cutting it out of the herd. I don't know exactly, you know, a die marker. Like, is there some way of like putting die stain on the articles that they're generating so that as they make their way through the information system, people are like, oh, this is misinformation and this is where it went and this is who repeated it and ooh, that's really interesting, right? That like, if you can die mark some of these things as they move through the open source information system, that's great. There was an interesting economist article that was in my flow this morning about open source intelligence and how a lot of entities are kind of welcoming open source intelligence because it's outing a whole bunch, you know, like Bellingcat is doing a lot of good work to out people who did bad things. Sorry, it takes a long to get back to you, Mark Antoine. And this is where we get in conflicts, right? The moment we're trying to assign universal trust ratings will be political and biased and this and that and untrusted, but that's the reality. It's, I think it's solvable by the way, but not directly, they'll all be local. Yes, I agree, they'll all, and that's the whole point. Trust, trust is local and getting people to work on other things as a group so that they learn to trust when another outside of the contentious issues is really key here. But this is why, sorry, I was writing about something else so I missed a bit of the transition from, you were speaking about interoperability and global objects and you got into something entirely. And for me, this transition is key, right? One reason I care so much about interoperability and everything is that people congregate on platforms by community also. And if things and breaking those silos is essential to putting people in touch to somebody else and getting them to become aware of other points of view and engaging with them. So for me, interrupt is absolutely non-optional in that it's about avoiding, it's about bursting the bubbles or at least creating bridges between the bubbles. In my conversation with Tverius two days ago, what he was saying is the way we work with other communities rather than try to create one mega community is say, okay, in my group, I have a channel for this other group that exists that I'm in contact with and they do the same. So we each can look at the intersection from our respective standpoint. I don't think that's adequate, but it's a beginning and having, but again, how can we go from there to something that is of broader use to anybody who's interested in contacting this group and creating the, you spoke of IDSX, creating the group negotiated trust always takes time. And the question is how can we, at least we use whatever transitive properties, right? I trust this other one and we built this alignment. Can we reuse that? But also building alignment has been building certain common ideas and how can we reuse that in building trust between with a totally new group? So the good news is that all this social media stuff among the terrible things that's brought us, one of the really good things that's brought us is an exercise of learning whom to trust over time already, we've been doing that. So my Twitter feed is not carefully sculpted, but actually watched, I watched it carefully so that I'm following people, a few people that are controversial, that I just wanna know what they said, but a lot of people whose opinions I love and whose writings I follow and all that kind of thing. So if you could retroactively just like, if you could color my Twitter follow-ease for me, those would be the people I trust. And like, I've been doing this work, we just need to go back and market and track it and label it and then share it. And if you connect up my tree of who I trust coming in with yours and Pete's and Judy's and Stacy's, that gets really interesting really quickly, right? Then we can prune, share, go, oh no, wait a minute, you're following this person who's a known, like whatever misinformation source, whatnot. But I think all those things are, I think I agree entirely, the trust takes a long time to develop. And if we started from scratch now, we wouldn't, maybe we'd run out of time, but I think we've been doing some of this groundwork. But on the other hand, isn't that mechanism exactly what's created the bubbles? Yes, and I think filter bubbles are interesting. I think filter bubbles might also be called curated points of view and might- That's correct. If we treat them well, filter bubbles can actually be put back to work to help us. And that's where I'm saying we need the way to, especially, explicitly make maps that are cross-bubbles, make concept maps that are cross-bubbles. And that's, okay, that's one thing, that's obvious. But still, I mean, the question is, there's trust and there's exposure. And these are two totally different needs. Yeah. Stacey. Yeah, I don't know what this means, but maybe it'll be helpful. Something that I was on, I was in a space where the comments were very reasonable. And then all of a sudden somebody with an opposing view came in, but after her name, blue letters said follow. And then immediately, all of the crazies just ascended on the page. And so my question is, why, like I don't really understand why Facebook would do that or what causes that to happen. But I think there's something to look at there. I just figured I'd mention it. Can you describe the phenomenon again? I'm not sure I understand what the blue follow was. It was a tag from Facebook. Facebook? I guess it would be a tag like track or follower. You know, one of those footings is what you mean Stacey down below where you can share or reply, but they also have a follow. Well, it was right next to her name. So the woman coming in, making these outlandish claims right next to her name, it said follow. And then immediately her following came over and descended on the page and changed the whole. Maybe it's a distribution list she's using? I don't know. I don't know. I just figured I would mention it because. Really? No, yeah. And it's something Facebook allows and maybe there's a good reason. Again, I just figured I'd throw it after. Thanks. Thanks Stacey. Michael. Stacey, I'm not familiar with that from Facebook, but I think it is something of a feature. I mean, you know, Tumblr and Twitter, you see somebody who you don't follow and the follow link is right there. And if it's somebody you do follow already, it's not. And I'm wondering, I mean, that model is a sensible one for those, you know, attention-driven platforms. I was interested to respond to the filter bubble question and it actually relates to the idea of following and knowing people in real life, IRL, you know, and that if you have more formless means of information sharing, granular information sharing where metadata is attached to whether it's, you know, tags, app mentions, links, associations, as in, you know, if Jerry dumped his brain and it's the fact that it was Jerry who had dumped it and the links that he'd put between things were evident, but then if one of those links also had all the metadata from other people who posted that same link, you both, you know, let's filter bubbles be somewhat emergent in a not completely unhealthy way in that you see like, okay, these are a bunch of things that you're not actually making a map, but a map is sort of also emergent that shows you this bunch of stuff that is associated with Jerry and Jerry's brain or this particular pocket of Jerry and Jerry's brain. Also is associated with Mark Antoine on that subject matter and so whether these people are literally socially connected, they are associated by their association with this content and so it lets you, you know, it has the danger of if you're espousing crackpot theories that somebody else is, you can find each other, but it also means that if you're making associations on that content in that content-based way, as opposed to I am socially following this person who I know because they are related to me or I know them in real life, which really does get those more typical social filter bubbles of people who all live in a region or all support a political candidate and, you know, are members of, you know, went to the same high school. I'm really struck by the fact that in my non-Facebook, non-Twitter information sharing activities, I can be with a bunch of people who are also Oakland racists or greater fans or, you know, gardeners or, you know, and then I don't have to associate with them around their politics, but I do get a hint of their politics and it exposes me to other points of view that would be outside my singular kind of Facebook filter bubble. So creating means for like unmapped, emergent, you know, soft bubbles seems like a good thing. Thanks, Michael. Very quickly, and I think it's important then to have an easy way to take something from one bubble to another. I find the metaphor channel to be terrible for that because it's very hard to say, oh, this also belongs here. Yeah, and I love reframing. I think reframing is super interesting, super powerful. And sometimes it's pretty quick. It's a little bit like, you know, it's a rabbit, it's a duck. You suddenly get, you get shown where the duck is and all of a sudden you're like, oh, wow, there's two things that I just have to shift my perspective. And I think that as we do that for policy notions and, you know, actions we intend to take moving forward and whatever else, it gets really interesting. And then all of this gets ground up and turned into policy. I was reading on Axios this morning that the Biden infrastructure plan has this much for broadband and the cable and phone companies are actually pretty happy because they managed to stamp out the part of it that says a lot of this money will go to community broadband. And in particular, they got rid of the provisions that get rid of all the prohibitions that they've managed to pass in local legislatures banning community broadband. So the cable and phone companies have done a fantastic job, I think aided by Alec, going into state and state, city and city across the country and making sure that there are laws passed that the community is not allowed to engage in community broadband gasp, which is to me like Stalinist, it's like horrible, like really, really like not Stalinist in the sense of abducting people and putting them in the gulag, but still, it's not a capitalist American sort of thing that you think that should be done unless you have a more cynical opinion of what America and capitalism in fact are about. So how to make these things more visible and how to understand what drives what and how the sausage gets made in a way that might help preserve some of those things, I don't know, because I think a piece of what we're trying to do is help, I think a piece of what we're trying to do is help stimulate self-governance. Or shared governance or whatever we wanna call it. Like we've been cut out of governance, we get to go vote once every four years for two parties that are remarkably alike, inside of a larger frame that is globalization and neoliberalism for the last 30 years. And then like go home, like leave the governance to us, we got this and look where that got us, right? And for me, consumerism is a piece of the feedstock here because when you're treated as a mere consumer, it removes your sense of agency, your only job is to buy stuff and keep the economy rolling. Like after 9-11 Bush says, go shopping. Seriously, he loses this entire opportunity to try to make civilization better to say, go shopping. So for me, the kinds of conversations we're talking about and Pete, this goes back to your lovely set of lies, like your multiple lies to get to the core of why I do this. Part of it is to rethink how educational works, to rethink how government works and governance works. And I like to talk about small G governance versus large G government. And large G government has become consumer mass marketing exercise that requires a lot of money, that is pretty corrupt, that is kind of broken in a lot of ways and still not corrupt enough that Trump managed to steal the election back, for example. So yeah, exactly. Anyway, sorry to, I'm just kind of wandering on that, but I'm trying to find my way back toward why does this matter? And how do we do it? And I'm way too concerned about and aware of the fact that the forces that understand social dynamics and psychology and interpersonal neurobiology better than the left do could easily come in and use this open source platform to do a better job of making their case. Totally worried about that. By the way, and I think that this is one reason why the notion of knowledge commons and legal boundaries around the knowledge commons are so important. Commons doesn't mean public. And having, and all the discussion on what is the legal infrastructure how this gets used? Does it get used for the common good? I think are absolutely fundamental. It's not just, yeah, anyway. But yeah, it's, I don't think it'll solve all the problems, by the way. Yes, absolutely agree. Which takes us into tomorrow morning's conversation. Should anybody want to join it about the generative commons? I have to leave now. Ciao, ciao. Ciao, ciao, Mark Antoine. Thank you so much. And we've got an hour. So I will contemplate motions to wrap this call. Unless you want to keep roughing on this, we're in a, I think a lovely spot. I think we're cracking open reasons why we're here. And why do you think we might go about it? Go ahead, Pete. I was just wondering if you were interesting motions to end the call or emotions to extend the call? Either way could go. Does anyone care to make a motion? I could do to go for practical reasons, but I'd hate to miss out if other people were extending the call. How's that? I like it, I like it. You resemble that. Yeah, fear of missing out. FOMO, yeah, OGM FOMO. Gary, you said you're really worried about something that's probably always going to happen. And Mark Antoine, just before he left said, that's why he likes the notion of legal boundaries around the knowledge commons. Suppose they're not legal boundaries, but some sort of, I don't know, technological boundaries, is that possible? AI boundaries, is that possible? A human curator boundaries, is that possible? I mean, it's absolutely going to happen because these good spaces always get co-opted by political correctness or desire to confuse others for your own benefit. But isn't there something that we can think of and then try to prototype? Personally, I'm not a tech guy, so I don't know what the limits of AI are. But if there were 99 human curators putting up the red dye that you mentioned earlier, wouldn't that be worth trying? A dye gets used back on you. So the question is, what's the dye? And a thing I learned only recently in Naval Gunnery, like the Japanese shells for the large guns they had on the Yamato and all the other ships, they used colored explosives. They dyed the explosives different colors so that they could tell where their shells landed. Because there's lots of splashing happening in the water. You don't know where you're aiming. You don't know if you ran long or short. You need to figure out that that shell out there is in fact your shell that you just shot. So you color it and track it and do that. Like, whoa, okay, that's pretty sophisticated and pretty interesting. I was just thinking we should start a subgroup on mind control and just like, let's just go straight and like chip everybody and do mind control. Seems like the simplest solution from this point. Stacey, do you have an objection to mind control? Not at all. Oh, good, good, then that settles. But in the case of those curators and the colors, I was just thinking that the goal would be to not have any color. Like when I go into different Facebook groups, I'm always looking for the one person that I can't tell where they're coming from. Like that or even when it comes to certain political figures, if they always vote a certain way, I'm really not that interested in that. Yeah, and what's funny is, do you trust those indistinguishable people more or less? It's neither, it's that I don't judge, it's that just the way I will interact with them will be different. The questions will be from genuine curiosity and they will usually respond that way. And the point is that they usually have a more diverse following. So one of the really interesting things you just sort of brought up is that, I think, this is just my take, very often people's responses, the dynamic is what gives away bad actors, not necessarily the content. And the content is a trail of the dynamic. But when you ask interesting questions, you're trying to tease apart an issue and they start basically fulminating and calling you a radical and doing, tarring and feathering you with something, damn, socialist or whatever, that's pretty much evidence to me of not engaging in the conversation in good faith or good spirit and a probably a bad actor. That said, one of the reasons for political correctness and everybody upset on the far left is that for all everyone's terrific efforts to create some degree of respect and dignity and equality, it's still ain't happening. And so they just get matter and matter. And I totally get that. And it turns into things like Defund the Police, which is a terrible brand for a really interesting idea. So, and then also it makes me think that some of the people who are gender neutral in conversation, so issue neutral, I don't know what to call it, that that's actually a really good way to glide past the detection systems that are trying to out bad actors. And so some of the people walking that boundary with care are in fact bad actors who are trying not to get outed but still disrupt the conversation. So that takes me back to their response to inquiry and to engagement might be a really big tell. Yes, it is. And that's why it's so important to not lose your temper with them, not be goaded into the name calling, just keep the questions really common and people observe that. Yeah, I love that. Pete. I wanted to observe that public discourse and debate has gotten very convoluted. So over the weekend, Stefan and I were processing some emergent events since making stuff. They were in the form of posters, kind of digital posters. But the message was that it was an anti-racism message. The messaging was all about racism and that it was bad. That was the delivery mechanism. The underlying message was that vaccine passports would be bad because they would be racist. And then the message underlying that is that voter ID is good because it keeps black people from voting. So all of those things were wrapped up in one message that was complex, hard to unwrap, confusing to unwrap because Stefan from Germany is like, so is this a thing? Did this black guy really not be able to get into a grocery store because he didn't have a vaccine passport? And I'm like, no, no, no, that's complete fabrication. But how would he know that? How would an unsophisticated American know that? If I'm an unsophisticated American reading this, where do I fall down on Black Lives Matter and voter ID and vaccine discrimination? And it's like, well, I want. And look, this guy gets to vote because he's black. Isn't that what we want? But this is all tactic. This is all very explicitly done. You mix something good with something bad and float it. And it floats. Well, the weird thing is on this one, it's you mix something good with something bad about something else that's bad. Yes. And by the time it literally took Stefan and I closer an hour probably to go through this and figure out what the heck they were trying to say. And then that it was a fairly clumsy anti-voter thing wrapped up in vaccine disinformation. And it creates cemented chaos intentionally. Yeah. And then I'm sure there are people behind those people generating that stuff that helped foment a culture of just wandering around being confused. I don't know. I'm so bruised and so tired of this back and forth and back and forth and back and back and back and back and forth about stuff. I'm just going to kind of ignore the whole thing. I'm going to go talk to somebody and get sued by hearing them say anti-vax stuff because that makes sense to me. Right. So it's interesting thinking about how you can tell the bad actors from the good actors. And it's interesting to in the olden days you would be able to say that this person always posts their one-note poster. They always post about the same thing. And if you ask them a question, they can't ever get out of their loop. You can say, yeah, that's probably a bad actor. But nowadays, bad actors and even the bad actors, people are doing the best bad acting, don't necessarily understand that they're bad actors. They might just be doing it for fun or they might be just whoever made that poster might be doing it for accolades in a small group. Let's own the lips. Let's mind F the lips. And that might be the reason they're doing it, not because that they're on one side of the thing or the other side of the thing. It's because they're 15-year-olds and they're bored at home and they just want to have some fun. So it's very complex, very fast. It was an article I don't think I captured yesterday before about how GPT-3 turns out to write better disinformation than humans. So basically, we're screwed. We should just point a party and forget about all this. I totally, not related, but kind of related. I found a report. There's some folks in medical radiography and stuff like that. They've figured out that AIs can tell your race from an x-ray or something like that and humans don't know why. So you can actually get an AI to sort, like look through 104,000 x-rays of lungs and they'll say, this person's black, this person's white, this person's Asian. And the worry is, the worry by the humans is like, I don't want the AIs to start cheating. When we ask them, okay, does this person have cancer? Maybe the AI, the first guess is like, well, black people have more lung cancer than white people and this is a black person. So I think they have lung cancer, even without really thinking about whether or not they actually have lung cancer, right? So, and they don't know why. And they can't tell the difference. Humans can't tell the difference. Yeah, and it's going to be more and more extreme as time goes on, but if you give up on it, then you leave it, you're voting, I'm a victim. Hi, everyone, I'm a victim. So people like us, and I'm using the big we here, if people like us don't try new things, we're leaving it to the bad guys, in quotes to try new things. So I sort of remember, I guess, you guys know it much better than I do, that when people were getting lots and lots of spam 10 years ago, they just opened the new Gmail account and it took the spammers a couple of years to discover the Gmail accounts, and then et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know, you do something and if it works for a couple of years, you've gained. And then if the spammers and the bad guys, you know, go and co-opt your system, you just create a new one. It's a little bit like Cory Doctorow's book, Walk Away. If anybody's seen it, so Cory Doctorow's a great sci-fi writer and a friend. He's, I don't know how he does all the things that he does. I have no concept, how he's insanely productive and smart and deep. But Walk Away, the concept is that there's, it's a dystopian future, civilization has broken, there are normals still living in cities, and there are walkaways, people who've gone off into the desert and other uninhabitable places, where through the magic of 3D printing and other kinds of matter compiling, you can set up your own little village and you can sort of, you can 3D print a village any way you want, complete with Japanese saunas and everything else you want. And then when the normals show up and try to take over, you basically give up, walk away, and then just build a new one because all your instructions are in the cloud and you can make, you can improve, you can tweak and improve all the things. And then two other little aspects out to it, the governance mechanisms matter and are sort of in this whole thing. And also there's a whole subplot about uploading your mind and escaping by uploading, which there's a lovely scene about the first of the people who've been uploaded, who physically has died and they're trying to boot her back into virtual life and it takes a lot of iterations and a lot of really bad experiences. And then when it gets better, it's like she's on a terrible trip in cyberspace and then they finally start figuring it out. But it's nicely done. He plays out a bunch of different things together. It sounds really good to check that out, except I'm thinking of doing it right in the mainstream, hiding in plain sight. I mean- The perlorn letter. Yeah, or the foundation where the second foundation was hiding in plain sight right under the noses of people who weren't able to see it. And I mean, somewhere in there are a couple of metaphors, I think are very useful for taking what we want to do and just trying to do something that works. I mean, I don't think we should walk away because then as someone told me in an earlier chat today, the world's gonna end in 80 years. What was it? 2080. Yeah, I mean, you can't leave it to other people. I mean, while we're still- There's the ultimate powerball lottery. Like take bets on when the world actually comes to an end. The problem is the payout's gonna be difficult. Judy? I was just trying to comment that I wonder, given the reactive character of folks on various social media, if maybe the best way to address inappropriate information is to just share with the inappropriate information a reliable source of information, just tag it and add it to the Twitter stream or whatever, because that's how people react to things. And it would be a way to populate preferred viewpoints or at least in our judgment, more considered viewpoints. I have to change places real quick, I'll be, I'm still here, whoever wants to jump in, jump in. I'm gonna need to leave pretty soon, by the way. Yeah, same here. By the way, Asimov's Foundation series is one of my favorites. Yeah, read them all three or four times and every time, the older you get, the more insight you get that he was really prescient with that. Yeah, yeah. Brilliant, author, brilliant man. Yeah. I think his son is a wine connoisseur and writer for the times and other places. Oh, interesting. He spoke at my high school graduation. Sweet. I'm not gonna tell you how many years ago that was. And what he said, one of the first things he said is I'm looking out into this audience and I can't predict the future, but I guarantee to you that at least 15% of you are not going to be here in 30 years. And he got everyone's attention. Wow, yeah, yeah. Judy, is your hand up from before? Oh, yeah, sorry, forgot to take it down. Yeah, I don't know if this would be interesting or not, but Ken Homer had posted something about agriculture and the article was about how issues were conflated. And then I think it was Neil Davidson and somebody else who took issue with that kind of an article being posted. And I didn't have enough time. I wanted to go back and read it carefully before I commented, but I actually think that that article might be interesting to look at and to see if we can untangle it. But the fact that there were people on there that just thought the article shouldn't be shared and it was a disservice, to me that's like what we're dealing with. So is that something that might be a value to look at? Yeah, and it's a tangly issue because anything you repeat three times is true, is like the Belmont's fallacy. And then there's a bunch of research that says that repeating or even echoing somebody's points basically gives them more credence as they go. And on the other hand, absolutely we need to sort of look at and figure out what all the sides are saying and dive under them. But the difference is we'd be doing it in a closed group. So that kind of pomp will affect what happened. Or at least we think we wouldn't be infected by it. But yes, we'd be in the bubble chamber ourselves. Go ahead, Michael. I was gonna say I favor, at least theoretically that thing that was posted that three people in a group of relative experts said was fallacious or what I didn't see it. So I don't know what the problem with it was, but let's say, you know, Klaus and this person and that person said, this is wrong because of this and this and we shouldn't be posting this. I would like their refutations to be publicly attached to that thing and continue traveling and more of them, more of those objections to accrue and be public. And you know, you're gonna have wrongheaded people saying negative things about good information or so we would characterize it. But on balance, you're gonna be able to see, oh, these are the people who trust this. These are the people who don't trust this. Even if I don't know these people and don't know whether I trust them because it's attributed, I can follow to their social media feeds get a sense of who they are and think, oh, okay, that helps me triangulate to whether this is good information or bad information helps me discover new sources helps me trust or not trust this source. A little bit like toilet paper on the shoe of misinformation. Stacy? Yeah, well, what I thought was particularly interesting about this case is that I trust both Ken and Neil Davidson and they were, so I would like to hear them discuss it. I mean, to me, that's the most valuable thing to hear two people that I trust both of them and to hear them give point and counterpoint. Because everything is deeply intertwinkled and everything kind of is represented in everything, taking one thing like that and taking it apart with care and chronicling it and manifesting it in whatever these spaces turn out to be that we're talking about would be a great exercise, I think would be helpful and would connect us into other neighboring debates, conversations, exercises, sources, et cetera, et cetera, would probably provoke us to invent better marker die and whatever else. So anything like that is a good starting point. I'm going to actually have to actually shift places soon. So maybe we wrap this call momentarily. Just want to ask, Stacy, when was that Ken's host? Was that yesterday or a few days ago? It was on the Google group a couple of days ago. Okay. I can, if you find out, please send it to you. Yeah, message or put it in Mattermost or so because there's so many posts coming in. I can't follow them all. I might have missed that one. I think I did. An empathize. Any closing thoughts for this call? Yep. Thanks everybody. It's awesome. Yeah. Really appreciate it. Another great call. Bye-bye.