NetSquared Conference as Watershed Event for Democracy

Having been involved in blogging from the beginning, let me note for the record an important watershed. Back in the early years, we had an A-List, and the core of that A-List were the bloggers (techies, and marketing people mostly) who had authored The Cluetrain Manifesto, the central thesis of which was, "Markets are Conversations." From the very first reading of it, I was unhappy that the book and the A-List, even David Weinberger (who as a philosophy PhD should have known better), was fixated on markets and intent on describing them, as libertarians often do, as the ending end of all, as a kind Utopia, once perfected. I recall writing an email to Doc Searls saying that the Cluetrain reminded me of the little choo-choo train that ran at Christmas inside a big mall, among the shops, to delight the children. Doc is a fine man and wrote back in a friendly spirit, patient with my polemic.

So, to me, the watershed event, moving beyond The Age of Cluetrain,  is the NetSquared Conference and contest. At last people are saying, in effect, "Civil Society is Conversations," or better yet, "Civil Society fosters Deliberative Democracy.  NetSquared: Remixing the Web For Social Change is using a little money, and the power of convening to foster any number of grassroots tech projects whose ambitions are not just making a buck, but also, or even more importantly, building social capital, reinventing citizenship, fostering conversation and collaboration, and revitalizing not just giving and philanthropy, but democracy.  You can vote for the project of your choice, but when all get attention, none lose. 

Big changes start small.  Democracy is not just voting in any given November for the Blinkered Pony in the Red Colors, or the Blinkered Pony in the Blue Colors, when they are trotted past us with Wealth in the Sulky for us to cheer this one and boo that one, or boo that one and cheer this one. Real democracy, as opposed to, say, Plutocracy or Autocracy or Oligarchy, is holding the political and judicial and think tank and propaganda engines, and the lobbyists, and even the markets, and the media accountable to people and planet. We do that by withdrawing attention from CNN, Time/Warner, Fox, or the Bloomberg Channel, whether they show us Saddam's statue toppling, or a Senate Panel grilling a Public Servant, or pundits discussing Imus, or the stock ticker rising and falling, and fixing our attention instead on what we can do with others to take our society back from those, our superiors, who have borrowed it for safe-keeping.  NetSquared is a small thing, but could be the visible rallying point for something very big.

Comments

[Kevin Jones]

I agree Phil. we entered our xigi project and Ive been getting more involved with this group. i like their approach. here is where someone could comment on xigi, with links to other comments. comments are another way that the voting works. it's deeper and more qualitative, but it all has weight in the system they are building. as you say, it's really a conversation.
http://www.netsquared.org/projects/proposals/xigi-net#comment-6928

[Phil]

Thanks, Kevin. I voted for xigi among other projects.

[Lucy Bernholz]

Phil
Great post. As a board member of CompuMentor (techsoup and netsquared) this makes me very proud. Thanks
Lucy

[Phil]

Thank you, Lucy, for your leadership.

[Leo Romero]

Thanks for the insight Phil. Didn't realize we were on the watershed, but now that you mention it, I see that we are, and are happy to be there. Best regards; Leo Romero, Community Organizer, NewsTrust

If you still have room in your ballot, please vote for us: http://www.netsquared.org/projects/proposals/newstrust

[Phil]

Thanks, Leo, interesting project. I did find room on my ballot.

[Leo Romero]

Thanks Phil!

[marnie webb]

Phil,

Thanks for your thoughts on the NetSquared project. We appreciate them.

The conversation has been a huge challenge. We are trying to balance a vote and the chance for resources with the central idea -- that getting people together can be a prime way move projects forward -- but for it to really happen you have to get real resources involved.

We've learned a lot this year -- a lot about how to do this better. This post helps us make sure that we don't lose what worked.

[Tom Watson]

Great post - you may well be onto something here. As you say, the money may not be huge - but the conversation....the participation...I gotta think about this.

[Phil]

You have given us a hill to rally round. That in itself is a very big step. To see forprofit people, tech people, and people with indepth experience in the nonprofit sector all involved, is quite inspiring to me. I hope you draw the eye of enlightened funders.

[Phil the Sore]

:: smooch! :: :: smooch! :: :: kissy-kissy! ::

I'm going to be sick, definitely.

[David]

A metaphor: Just like Austin's Northloop Blvd. is home to a gaggle of ecletic small businesses, the NetSquared innovation awards is home to a cluster of relatively small, meaningful projects. People stroll by and can't help but notice the others! :)

Indeed, democracy is more than voting. It is deliberation and participation.

[JJ Commoner]

NetSquared is a small thing, but could be the visible rallying point for something very big.

Just wait till "they" re-do the Intertubes, whether through legislation, DRM or other means. There's a reasonable chance yet that democracy as such will be doled out for us not on our terms ... same as it ever was.

Deliberation and participation are just great, until it gets too close to the bone.

Honestly, do not want to dampen enthusiasm nor momentum ... I've followed Netsquared for a while and believe it is very promising.

Phil knows my core beliefs pretty well, and how I view the opportunities and challenges offered by the Web. It's just that this democracy thing is really quite threatening to the way things currently are.

[Phil]

Yes, we are close to the bone, when we talk about deliberative democracy, because clearly we don't have it in electoral politics today. Whether the internet works for us in the future or is intentionally fixed to make it more like broadcast channels will depend on whether we use it to do more than converse and deliberate.

[Gerry]

What is really cool is how many great projects that got listed. That some handful will get a financial boost is even better. Looks like it is very open ended, how much for each project for how long.

Isn't this far enough from the mainstream to develop without much notice and take the public stage over a very short period. The reason the topic of remaking democracy comes up is that there is a sense of a collection of projects that individually may be interesting but not a revolution add up to the possibility of something more. Sustained strategic funding of a constellation of open projects could make all the difference in creating a technological, social and financial foundation for an entirely new economy. It could make all the difference politically as well.

[Phil]

Yes, and lets hope some venture funders are cruising about thinking of how they might have a disproportionate impact with a relatively minor social investment, and even make some money if things go right.

[klaus]

Cursory glance, seems the featured projects are about "helping the vulnerable."

[Phil]

That would be most of us.

[klaus]

Yeah. I am a member of the anti-genocide constituency. I'm also opposed to lawn darts landing on my foot.

[Gerry]

A notable exception is GrassRoots.org, but generally I agree, the selections are generally a disappointment. Not really much to rally around.

[Daniel]

We appreciate Phil's post and this discussion. This post by Mark Bolgiano, former c.i.o. of the Council on Foundations (and now c.e.o. of XBRL U.S.) really came close to expressing our hopes and intentions for this project:

http://www.netsquared.org/blog/mbolgiano/scale-model-future

[Phil]

Thanks, Daniel, blogged it.