This week, we tackled existence in the virtual world. Obviously, that is overly broad and a bit dramatic, but maybe the key takeaway is that in a lot of basic ways, existence or at least social interaction in the virtual world can be much like how we behave in the real world, with some important differences.

Christakis and Fowler, in their chapter from Connected, introduce their discussion of social networks with the topic of a “massively multi-player game,” World of Warcraft, in which the population experienced a huge epidemic and real doctors and epidemiologist realized that the players behaved similarly to how they might in the real world. The “real behavior” occurred to such an extent that an academic article was published about the possibility of using virtual reality to study real reality. Online connections and ideas influence us in almost the same way that they do in the real world, but often with greater speed and much broader scope.

Now for the important differences. One key aspect of the virtual world is that in addition to the illusions that we actively see – a completely synthetic reality where you can meet people from all over the world or find out information at a touch of a finger, we are also subjecting ourselves to illusions we aren’t aware of. Eli Pariser originally, and Jonathan Stray both discuss the phenomenom of the “filter buble,” where despite our best efforts or perception that we are receiving a broad, representative view of the information on the web, the rise of personalized search and feed means that we are actually only viewing and consuming the things that the algorithm thinks we want to view and consume. This severely limits our access and freedom to move through all the information of the internet…partically because we would never be able to successfully navigate it all without some kind of filter.

Another key difference between how we can (and will) behave in the real world vs the virtual one is the intersection of the two worlds and the rules imposed in each of those worlds. The Economist article touches on how legislation in the real world, Europe to be specific, seeks to edit and control content online – demanding that content be removed from google. Even more interesting, in “The Delete Squad,” Rosen discusses the generation and iteration of content policy as ascribed by private companies like Facebook, Google, and to some degree Twitter.

Of all the ways that the real world and the virtual world mirror one another and constraints and conventions in one impact the constraints and conventions in another, examining the somewhat informal and ad hoc way that policy is being created in the virtual world is informative. Certainly, that is the case for me currently, studying at a school for public policy…so here’s what the Rosen article made me think about.

We’ve heard a lot about the idea of disruption through technology…disruption of how we buy and sell things (amazon, ebay,) disruption in how we get from place to place (uber)…but I wonder if the ubiquitous and fast moving nature of the internet has also generated or obviated the introduction of policy disruption.

In the example of Facebook, ultimately the initial formalization of policy came at the initiative of a 20 something help center worker turned content policy writer. Initially, I questioned his credentials to be part of the policy setting team for such a broadly used common space but then it occurred to me that the start-up culture/phenomenon sees many once-something-elses make it big as a tech mogul because they had an idea for how to do something better or faster or more easily. Should I necessarily rule out the idea of a policy start-upper or policy entrepreneur (after all, my public policy class uses the term though it seems to refer to something pretty different in the world of real life politics and public policy…) And from that, shouldn’t the guy who has to field the actual calls and see the actual content posted…who manages the team who are actually the “first responders” for the content that is reported as questionable, know best? Should he have, if not the best perspective, then a pretty well-informed perspective of what kinds of calls are out there to be made and rules that should govern those calls?

And from that, in some respects, the policy that Willner was instrumental in creating seemed to be more functionally applicable than policies that countries more broadly have adopted. Which was actually Willner’s objective – applicability over nuanced interpretation, such that algorithms or minimally trained “first responders” can make the call rather than lawyers or judges or courts. Is this policy goal better? Certainly, the way that Willner came to be the setter of this policy is much less deliberate than the framing of the constitution and the intentional balancing of power conceived of in the US political and legislative system. And Willner’s decisions may ultimately impact many more people with much less formality around how to change them.

Which brings up the next thing I thought of…the reversal of where the democratic part comes in in these web-policy setting scenarios. Within the context of the web, the “deciders” or policy makers or ultimate actors with power are already in place, often because of where they work or what they invented. While, in a representative democracy, the deciders would most likely be elected (or appointed by elected officials.) On the internet, it’s the policies themselves which are subject to election. It’s when the policies are implemented, that they are exposed to the input…the “vote” of the masses (users) because the internet is a platform on which they can comment. If the users show broad disapproval of the policy itself, then the deciders may reverse themselves, not because they won’t be re-elected, but because they respect and need the users…and even more peculiar, in this system, the opinion of an entire government or influential institution often holds nearly as much water as individual voters.

That said, will the immediate functionalization of policy prove a better lens through which to view the policy process model? Is it better than measures that elected officials subject governmental legislation to? Or just different because they have the optics and re-elections to deal with. The really interesting thing will be if/when we see these tech side actors join the ranks of the public officials…is there a hope that Willner would ever leave Facebook to try to shape the way these decisions are made back in the real world? If he ever did become a public servant (in the traditional sense) would he make better real life policies than other politicians or bureaucrats? Could he accelerate or streamline the policy process model? I think real life policy at the very least, would benefit from his voice and influence.

Note: I want to write like 500 more words on this based on what Erie said about open source policy writing but I’ll refrain.