- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/5400607
This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons, where a common resource is harmed by the profit interests of individuals. The traditional example of this is a public field that cattle can graze upon. Without any limits, individual cattle owners have an incentive to overgraze the land, destroying its value to everybody.
We have commons on the internet, too. Despite all of its toxic corners, it is still full of vibrant portions that serve the public good — places like Wikipedia and Reddit forums, where volunteers often share knowledge in good faith and work hard to keep bad actors at bay.
But these commons are now being overgrazed by rapacious tech companies that seek to feed all of the human wisdom, expertise, humor, anecdotes and advice they find in these places into their for-profit A.I. systems.
Hi, uneducated rube here. Could you elaborate on that? Because at many times during my life I have seen objective evidence of what looks quite a lot like the tragedy of the commons. When something is considered a public responsibility without a specific owner someone will mistreat it to the point of uselessness in an extreme majority of cases. I observe this in college common areas, gas station air pumps, litter left in public areas, dog park cleanup stations, self-serve kiosks of all types from vending machines to car washes, and more.
I admit (and more than that, agree) that a situation can be created in which said tragedy of the commons can be avoided, but in my experience it would require a handler who is specifically responsible for the well being of the item in question. Either one who is paid to police the object, or one who has taken it upon themselves to police the object because they cannot function without it.
But the fact that you can assign a babysitter to prevent someone from ruining “the commons” doesn’t mean the concept as a whole is moot. I also admit that a lot of the problems I encounter are uniquely American, and social culture in other places may help prevent commons tragedies like theft or defacement. But in my experience as an American the tragedy of the commons is a very real and living thing. If you give public access to an item and expect said public to take appropriate care of it, you’ll more often than not be sorely disappointed, at nearly any location in our country.
Yet now I’m being told the entire concept was invented to push white supremacy and isn’t real. Frankly that may be true because a ton of shit here was invented in service of white supremacy, but a broken clock is still right twice a day. Regardless what the original intention was I have a hard time saying outright that it’s just wrong. And hell, white people are often the ones fucking up common items just like brown folks. I don’t see a racial component to it at all, at least in the modern understanding. I have no doubt this was being used as racist propaganda at points within the last couple hundred years, because historically, America has been pretty goddamn racist - but these days I believe the understanding has evolved. At least mine did. This is the first I’m hearing about it being a racist thing, and not only that, but putting your foot in something and then blaming it on black folks is a classic American racist move right out of the playbook. So it makes perfect sense that this was something that was happening anyway, nearly everywhere by everyone, but could be conveniently blamed on a certain population as a way of saying “They’re the reason you can’t have nice things”. Just like everything else racists have made up for the last 6,000 years and continue to do.
But, again, uneducated rube. I don’t know much about this stuff beyond the common understanding of the phrase and what I’ve seen in my own lifetime to support it.
Garrett Hardin’s essay the Tragedy of the Commons wasn’t the first instance of the idea being written about by any means, not by a long shot, but it was one of the most important pieces for popularising it. Hardin doesn’t say anything explicitly racist, but he comes down pretty hard on the side of enforced population control and privatisation of everything. He even takes specific exception to the part of the UN’s universal declaration of human rights about the right to a family. While Hardin didn’t say anything like, “and we should control the population of black people first to make room for the whites,” (in the essay at least, the guy may well have been a massive raging racist elsewhere but I wouldn’t know), such Malthusian arguments are very often used to justify such beliefs.
Regarding the pro-capitalism side, this is something Hardin was pretty explicit about. One criticism of his essay is, as an example, that rather than enclosing sections of the commons in to individual parcels of private land, the community could share in the profits of the grazing animals instead, and then the incentive to abuse the commons is still handled. Perhaps this could still be seen as a sort of private property with shareholders if the community then winds up fending off a neighbouring community from using it, but I think for the purposes of one quick and short example of the limitations of Hardin’s thinking it works well enough.
You’re right that it’s pretty easy to find examples of it happening in real life. I think what we’re doing to the climate is probably the best possible example. However, Hardin and other writers typically don’t describe it as a thing that can happen, but a thing that will inevitably happen. In this case we do know that they’re wrong, ironically enough because of the commons that the term comes from. Hardin uses a broad variety of examples and doesn’t tie himself to the example of common grazing grounds, but the fact that such grazing grounds were successfully managed by communities for many centuries is something of a dent in the argument that humans will always follow the selfish incentive to abuse them.
Thanks for the detailed response, seems like the main disconnect here was in my understanding of the phrase and concept in general vs other users’ referring to the specific text.
I think I still take issue with the statement that it “doesn’t exist”, though, because it does. It may not be inevitable as Hardin writes but it is a societal problem that arises, and must be properly handled just like the other hundreds of myriad problems that have arisen over the growth of global society. Disregarding it as capitalist propaganda will leave you with a barren grazing ground, when the more correct solution is to analyze the causes and effects of the tragedy of the commons and plan around it.