Alt Text
ok idc im still talking about this because everyone is doing wack tech political philosophy
paul's statement is like intensely interesting and also intensely wrong imo. i was gonna write a blog thing about this yesterday but i thought i was out of steam
imo there are several overlapping concepts at play here (these are stipulated definitions, anachronistic and kinda ideal typic):
federation: a group of actors organized under a central authority they comprise
confederation: a group of actors comprising a common organization, crucially
with the right to succession.
"tech federation": as far as i can tell this is basically interoperability. a common communication method that actors can use to interface with one another.
there are sub-questions here about the internal decision-making procedure of such entities. two forms this can take i think are best explained with reference to the way power is distributed to roles:
representative: a group of actors appoint another actor to present their interests and make decisions on their behalf.
delegate: the delegation i'm thinking of is informed by the social anarchist tradition. delegates are strictly mandated and instantly recallable.
i'll let kropotkin explain strict mandates: "the delegate is not authorized to do more than explain to other delegates the considerations that have led his colleagues to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he will seek an understanding and
will return with a simple proposition which his mandatories can accept or refuse". unlike representatives, delegates do not provide their own perspective, but summarize their mandatories' collective perspective to another group of actors.
instant recall is the enforcement mechanism to ensure this happens. if the delegate deviates from the mandatories' desires, they can be recalled and replaced with someone who can summarize their views accurately.