The Future of Work, Fun, and Being Social

How Internet Reputation Systems and The Online Coordination of Offline Life are

Changing the Fundamental Structure of Society

Joe Edelman <joe.edelman@gmail.com>CouchSurfing Int’l & Emergency Communities

v1.0 on 28 Feb 2007CC-SA-BY

an introduction to the nascent adventure economy

or

TOC

1. Variety, Opportunity, and Choice

2. Street Culture & Hospitality

3. Social Networking with Strangers

4. The Adventure Economy

5. The “People, Opportunities, Trust” Infrastructure

Imagine you had a technology that could

divide up work

Imagine you had a technology that could

and divide up work

find thousands of interested people

What would it be like?

Instead of one person running a hostel for money, you could find 1000 people in a city who want to meet visitors, and they can share the task by having tourists stay in their homes every once in a while. (couchsurfing)

Instead of 100 people writing an encyclopedia, one million people can share the task in a way that is unnecessarily burdensome for any of them. (wikipedia)

Chores

Opportunities

(preference identification& task distribution)

Hard to get involved

Easy to get involved

(smaller tasks)

Here’s how it’s done on wikipedia

Here’s how it’s done on couchsurfing

Old Model New ModelA few people do all the work,

and they work full timeWork is highly distributed,

and members have more flexibility

You have to pay them You don’t have to pay them

It’s hard to get involved It’s easy to get involved

You’re supported by a few people you know

You’re supported by a legion of strangers

Brittanica Wikipedia

Hosteling Int’l CouchSurfing

Internet Explorer Firefox

Nightclubs Street Parties

In the past, our interactions and careers have looked like this:

48 COASE’S PENGUIN V.04.3 AUGUST. 2002

48

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the point. Figure 1 assumes that there are two firms,

each having contracts with a set of agents and property in a set of resources. Assume

that as among {A1. . . A5} the best agent for using the combination r1, r4 is A2. Assume

also that as among the agents {A1. . . A9}, A8 is the best, in the sense that if A8 were to

use these resources, the social value of the product would be greater by some measure

m than when, A2, the best agent within Firm A, uses them.

A1A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1

r2r3

r4

r5

r6r7

r8r9

Company A

Company B

Figure 1: Agents and Resources Separated In Different Firms

A1A2

A3

A4A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1r2

r3r4

r5

r6

r7

r8

r9

Peer production

community

Figure 2: Agents and Resources In a Common Enterprise

Space

Not only is it unlikely that the two firms will have the information that A8 is best for

the job, as I suggested in the discussion of information gains. Even if they do know, as

long as transaction costs associated with transferring the creativity of A8 to Firm A or

the property in r1 and r4 to Firm B are greater than m, creativity will be misapplied.

When the firms merge, or when the agents and resources are in a common peer

production enterprise space, the best person can self-identify to use the resources.

Think of this as someone musing about fairy tales and coming up with a biting satire, which she is then capable of implementing, whereas the employee of the initial owner

of the rights to the fairy tale might only produce a depressingly earnest new version.

This initial statement is a simplification and understatement of the potential

value of the function by which the sizes of the sets of agents and resources increase

productivity. There are two additional components: the range of projects that might be

pursued with different talent applied to a given set of resources, and the potential for

valuable collaboration. First, a more diverse set of talents looking at a set of resources may reveal available projects that would not be apparent when one only considers the

set of resources as usable by a bounded set of agents. In other words, one of the

advantages of A1 may be not the ability to pursue a given project p1 with r2 better than

A2 could have, but to see that a more valuable p2 is possible. Second, the initial

statement does not take into consideration collaboration, and the possible ways in

which cooperating individuals can make each other creative in different ways than

they otherwise might have been. Once one takes into consideration these diverse effects on the increased possibilities for relationships among individuals and between

company

household

48 COASE’S PENGUIN V.04.3 AUGUST. 2002

48

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the point. Figure 1 assumes that there are two firms,

each having contracts with a set of agents and property in a set of resources. Assume

that as among {A1. . . A5} the best agent for using the combination r1, r4 is A2. Assume

also that as among the agents {A1. . . A9}, A8 is the best, in the sense that if A8 were to

use these resources, the social value of the product would be greater by some measure

m than when, A2, the best agent within Firm A, uses them.

A1A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1

r2r3

r4

r5

r6r7

r8r9

Company A

Company B

Figure 1: Agents and Resources Separated In Different Firms

A1A2

A3

A4A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1r2

r3r4

r5

r6

r7

r8

r9

Peer production

community

Figure 2: Agents and Resources In a Common Enterprise

Space

Not only is it unlikely that the two firms will have the information that A8 is best for

the job, as I suggested in the discussion of information gains. Even if they do know, as

long as transaction costs associated with transferring the creativity of A8 to Firm A or

the property in r1 and r4 to Firm B are greater than m, creativity will be misapplied.

When the firms merge, or when the agents and resources are in a common peer

production enterprise space, the best person can self-identify to use the resources.

Think of this as someone musing about fairy tales and coming up with a biting satire, which she is then capable of implementing, whereas the employee of the initial owner

of the rights to the fairy tale might only produce a depressingly earnest new version.

This initial statement is a simplification and understatement of the potential

value of the function by which the sizes of the sets of agents and resources increase

productivity. There are two additional components: the range of projects that might be

pursued with different talent applied to a given set of resources, and the potential for

valuable collaboration. First, a more diverse set of talents looking at a set of resources may reveal available projects that would not be apparent when one only considers the

set of resources as usable by a bounded set of agents. In other words, one of the

advantages of A1 may be not the ability to pursue a given project p1 with r2 better than

A2 could have, but to see that a more valuable p2 is possible. Second, the initial

statement does not take into consideration collaboration, and the possible ways in

which cooperating individuals can make each other creative in different ways than

they otherwise might have been. Once one takes into consideration these diverse effects on the increased possibilities for relationships among individuals and between

company

company

each person had access to only a few resources and projects: the resources and projects in their company or home or school

The internet is making it cheaper to be part of more.

48 COASE’S PENGUIN V.04.3 AUGUST. 2002

48

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the point. Figure 1 assumes that there are two firms,

each having contracts with a set of agents and property in a set of resources. Assume

that as among {A1. . . A5} the best agent for using the combination r1, r4 is A2. Assume

also that as among the agents {A1. . . A9}, A8 is the best, in the sense that if A8 were to

use these resources, the social value of the product would be greater by some measure

m than when, A2, the best agent within Firm A, uses them.

A1A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1

r2r3

r4

r5

r6r7

r8r9

Company A

Company B

Figure 1: Agents and Resources Separated In Different Firms

A1A2

A3

A4A5

A6

A7

A8A9

r1r2

r3r4

r5

r6

r7

r8

r9

Peer production

community

Figure 2: Agents and Resources In a Common Enterprise

Space

Not only is it unlikely that the two firms will have the information that A8 is best for

the job, as I suggested in the discussion of information gains. Even if they do know, as

long as transaction costs associated with transferring the creativity of A8 to Firm A or

the property in r1 and r4 to Firm B are greater than m, creativity will be misapplied.

When the firms merge, or when the agents and resources are in a common peer

production enterprise space, the best person can self-identify to use the resources.

Think of this as someone musing about fairy tales and coming up with a biting satire, which she is then capable of implementing, whereas the employee of the initial owner

of the rights to the fairy tale might only produce a depressingly earnest new version.

This initial statement is a simplification and understatement of the potential

value of the function by which the sizes of the sets of agents and resources increase

productivity. There are two additional components: the range of projects that might be

pursued with different talent applied to a given set of resources, and the potential for

valuable collaboration. First, a more diverse set of talents looking at a set of resources may reveal available projects that would not be apparent when one only considers the

set of resources as usable by a bounded set of agents. In other words, one of the

advantages of A1 may be not the ability to pursue a given project p1 with r2 better than

A2 could have, but to see that a more valuable p2 is possible. Second, the initial

statement does not take into consideration collaboration, and the possible ways in

which cooperating individuals can make each other creative in different ways than

they otherwise might have been. Once one takes into consideration these diverse effects on the increased possibilities for relationships among individuals and between

Life is more adventurous.

You can choose your own adventure.

New ModelWork is highly distributed,

and members have more flexibility

You don’t have to pay them

It’s easy to get involved

You’re supported by a legion of strangers

Wikipedia

CouchSurfing

Firefox

Street Parties

&

the internet enablesthe Adventure Economy

(more later)

Street Culture& Hospitality

New Model

It’s easy to get involved

You’re supported by a legion of strangers

Wikipedia

CouchSurfing

Firefox

Street Parties

Global:Helpers areon the internet

Local:Real-lifeconnections

History of Real-Life Connections

People used to connect in the street, and live in tight-knit communities. Being from the same town or congregation was something in common, and a reason to trust someone.

People used to share more, and depend on each other. They still do in the “third world”.

Television & the automobile destroyed these tight-knit communities. It’s not just sharing of stuff that went out of style: the sharing of love and attention and care went too.

Nowadays, people are more likely to think that everyone is out for themselves.

see http://www.bowlingalone.com/

Imagine you had a technology that could

find thousands of interested people

... and party

!"#$%&'$(")"(%*+,-

!"#$%&'()*'+*,-.*/'012$%&*+31$/431*#4(+5*63'(71*83+#43*$(0*

91*:4'%%;( /+311+/5*<;(+31$%

./01230,+%*!"456%%%%%%%%%%%%77789:9;#<9=$8(>= ?9;$=(<@A$BC$D$E8$FG

from avantgame.com

!"#$%&'$(")"(%*+,-

!"#$%&'$()'*+,-./'0$11,2.#3'04#-,56#$3.78'%996.7$-,2.'-$:'

,('-+.';$7),( )4 <4=.0>97:8 ?$7,1

./01230,+%*!"456%%%%%%%%%%%%77789:9;#<9=$8(>= ?9;$=(<@A$BC$D$E8$FG

from avantgame.com

!"#$%&'$(")"(%*+,-

!"#$%&"#$%&'()&*+,-./&0'112,-34&0#352673'4-.&)#$%&)#$%

8++1-&2(&92112+(&"+3+.-1&:'.%;&<'(&=.'($21$+

./01230,+%*!"456%%%%%%%%%%%%77789:9;#<9=$8(>= ?9;$=(<@A$BC$D$E8$FG

from avantgame.com

!"#$%&'()$&*(&*"()#"+&,-./&0123

4#56+&!"#"$%&'()&*++,

7#859:97#;5$+ '(+-

"(:#59(;+&."%/001&!/234%"13&

5670&8%&%93&:4%3148%;048<&

=04234%;04&=34%13

#:59(;+ >?3&8&/"@ABC

<,=13>=-?&.@9ABC&&&&&&&&&&&&DDDE#F#;5*#'6E:(' G#;6':*H)68I6"6JE64K

from avantgame.com

!"#$%&''()*$!+,"-(.'&)/!0/)(0

.,1$/($2&,)(.1)(+$01.3

from avantgame.com

!"#$%&'(

)"*+&,'!"

-.'/0

1,00"*1&'2

from avantgame.com

The Web of Content

(vs) The Web of Life

Doing Stuffwith Strangers

Economicswe all have stuff, and capabilities, to offer each other

we all need certain things and have certain preferences and wishes

how do we know where to use our capabilities, get what we need, and advance our wishes?

Economics: Three Transaction Frameworks

Markets (buy it on the open market)

Firms, Households, and Clubs (get it from within a cartel or group or corporation, to which I belong)

Social networks (get it for free from my neighbor)

Modified from http://www.slideshare.net/macloo/economics-of-social-production

collaborative projects

(by necessary trust)

Clickworkers

WikipediaOpen Source

FlashmobsImprov Everywhere

Free HugsBurningman

Pillow Fight Club

ParkourOnline DatingRide SharingCouchSurfingSuicide Clubs

High-trust systems require

high-trust technology

(i.e. references and contact

control)

CouchSurfing References: A reason to trust strangers

In the market, we trust strangers because either (a) we can take them to court for contract violation, or (b) they are under pressure of being fired.

In social systems, and in CS and eBay, we trust strangers because they have a reputation, and they could lose it.

For economists:see Ronald Coase, “The Nature of the Firm” for situations when firms are more efficient than totally free markets

see Yochai Benkler, “The Wealth of Networks” for situations when social networks are more efficient than either firms or markets

efficient: means they meet our preferences better and use fewer resources

For economists

“Prices facilitate exchange when information is scarce and coordination difficult, when goods are standardized and cheap... Conversely, reciprocal exchange has been preferred when trade involves a personal interaction, and when goods or services are unique, expensive, or have many dimensions of quality.”- Avner Offer, Between the gift and the market: the economy of regard; Economic History Review, L 3(1997), pp. 450-476

AdvantagesEfficiency & Power: Projects have access to the people who choose to participate from a wider pool and for shorter times and thus have better appropriateness. We can mobilize more resources when we are not limited to our firm or household. (i.e., “Cooperation Gain”)

Fun, Adventure, & Choice: People can make many more choices at a finer level of granularity in their lives, and it’s more fun and adventurous.

Quality: When each individual attends to a diversity of resources, each resource is attended to by more people, and the overall quality increases. Also: When individuals are able to change their minds about what is best, and to mobilize diverse resources quickly in response to new information, we all stand to benefit from this flexibility.

The Adventure Economy

The Adventure Economy

doing stuff with strangers

lots of people and resources available to you

choose your own adventure

The Vision: Global Cooperation

Whatever you want to learn, whatever you want to feel or do, there are people on the internet that will help you.

The Vision: Local Cooperation

Whatever you want to learn, whatever you want to feel or do, there are people on your street, or down your block that will help you.

The web makes modular tasks easy to distribute to lots of people.

The web makes it easier to know when to trust strangers.

--> the web makes it easier to help each other.

Why is this happening?

1983 - Open Software

2002 - Open Content

2007 - Open Life

Open Things

Look for these characteristics

task distribution

getting together with strangers

sharing our time, attention or stuff

creating networks

Infrastructure

Infrastructure.

These kinds of endeavors are popping up everywhere.

Money, courts of law, prisons, and bank notes are technologies that make the money economy work.

Systems of trust, stranger-finding, and task distribution like CouchSurfing are what make the adventure economy work.

What is necessary?

A directory of people who are ready to interact.

A good way of helping us specify what we’d like to learn, feel, do, or share with others.

An open protocol that lets anyone with a vision create local and global supportive communities of trust.

What is necessary?

Internet suppliers for:

People (e.g. profiles)

Opportunities (e.g. location, time, and interest search)

Trust (e.g. references)

What is necessary?

P.O.T.

What do we have?

100,000 programmers and designers in the open source movement

1 million writers of blogs and wikipedia

lots of lawyers, economists, mathematicians, scientists, activists

a bunch of interest-specific sites that are already doing this

Conclusion

The web, and what it has to do with our capacity for fun and adventure.

Task distribution & loose teams

Getting help from strangers

easier to get involved / included

20th century economic history: how we provision ourselves with food, shelter, assistance, and love.

Examples of the change.

Infrastructural differences.

How CS fits in.

Barn Raisinghighly distributed

nobody has to spend a long time at it

nobody has to get paidchallenges:

distributing tasks (like dishes at a potluck)knowing who you can trust to comegetting everyone there at the same time

easier in a tight knit (e.g. Amish) community, where citizens have flexible schedules and know each other

join us at the center for adventure economics:http://wiki.couchsurfing.com/Adventure_Economics

help us design the standards for interoperability (people, opportunities, and trust) that power the adventure economy

help us build a platform to enable and support the sharing of love, time, knowledge, and basic needs, locally and globally on a wide scale.

Get involved

Adventure Economy

Web of Life

P.O.T.(People, Opportunities, and Trust)

Choose Your Own Adventure

HospitalityStreet Culture

Open Life

People Power