Third release: Decentralisation, a technosocial process and analytical framework

Introduction

In the past years, growing popular debate and technological developments have focused on the potential and promises of decentralised or distributed technologies for purposes of financial transactions, digital governance, data processing, and content sharing. However, the project of leveraging decentralisation as a means of resistance against the centralised and monopolistic models of governance involves a complex array of phenomena and technosocial tensions. Within the traditionally centralised systems of technology governance, there is growing exploration, experimentation, and migration towards more decentralised and pluralistic means of governance as the pressures from governments and civil society question the legitimacy of monopolistic and transnational structures of governance.

This special section of Internet Policy Review descriptively and critically maps the techno-social developments and dynamics taking place in the field of decentralised technologies. The ever-growing discourse on the ideologies and values enshrined in such technological processes requires analytical frameworks whereby the conceptualisation of each notion in this glossary is tailored to the interlinkages between technological design systems and the socio-political and economic implications. This new release as part of the glossary builds upon the current catalogue of terms by emphasising a set of terms that foreground the complexities of decentralised practices of governance and decision-making processes over essential elements and within crucial institutions of our contemporary digital economy. Six new terms are released today:

A key structural element to decentralising digital governance is interoperability, as it refers to the ability of different systems - whether technical, organisational, or socio-technical - to communicate, share resources, and work together effectively. This concept, developed in Chris Berg's entry, is applicable across various domains, each with its unique requirements and challenges. While interoperability is crucial in decentralised systems, it also presents challenges, including the need for complex coordination, the risks of market dominance, and the potential stifling of technological innovation through the standardisation of techno-social practices.

In the realm of governance over online content, the development of forms of decentralised content moderation describes the emergence of a distributed approach to managing online content, moving away from the platformised models to systems where multiple actors or institutions share the responsibility and authority to moderate. The entry by Paul Friedl and Julian Morgan conceptualises the history and development of such systems and the analytical framework needed to understand the shifts and discontinuities towards decentralised governance in this area. It highlights how various nodes of governance can exercise differentiated degrees and forms of authority over decisions on the availability of content in a decentralised setting. By interrogating the infrastructural, social and legal challenges of this type of governance it emphasises the importance of technologically entrenched decentralisation in order to foster a culture of responsibility between the nodes of governance and the producers and consumers of the governed content.

The entry authored by Gijs van Maanen, Tommaso Fia, and Charlotte Ducuing delves into the concept of data commons, defined as communities that collectively and sustainably govern data and their interrelationships. It stresses the significance of communal and sustainable governance for the benefit of data-sharing communities within the networks of data-processing relationships.. The authors emphasise the necessity of acknowledging the social and political nuances in data governance, arguing against a one-size-fits-all approach. The entry importantly presents the importance of conceptualising use-value over exchange-value in data governance to mitigate the adverse effects of data commodification and ensures that decentralised data governance frameworks serve the community's needs.

Relatedly, data cooperatives, as detailed in the entry by Alexander Fink, are entities that manage and trade data on behalf of their members under the theoretical framework of decentralised governance Data cooperatives operate as intermediaries, collecting and leveraging data for member benefit or external trade. Governance in data cooperatives is pivotal, encompassing member engagement in decision-making and strategic direction, reflecting cooperative principles of economic democracy and collective benefit. The use of technology, like blockchain, may facilitate the goal of decentralised governance and maintain operational efficiency in such frameworks. They reflect a broader movement towards decentralised and democratic management of resources in the digital age, with ongoing research and development needed to fully understand their potential and implications.

In these forms of decentralised governance, a fundamental issue pertaining to the political economy and political philosophy of such aggregate decision-making is that of the various consensus techniques that systems operate with. The entry by Steve Jankowski elaborates on the evolution and multifaceted nature of consensus within decentralised systems. It examines this concept genealogically through the tensions between consensus understood as a cultural technique essential in fostering democratic participation and legitimacy and the efficiency-oriented conceptions that emerged with the advent of digital governance. The entry argues for a recalibration of the conceptualisation of consensus processes, suggesting that they should aim not just at decision-making but at enhancing democratic understanding thus challenging the technocratic appropriation of the term and advocating for a balance between consensus and dissensus to truly support democratic ideals.

Finally, Hanah Gawel's entry discusses the evolution of hacktivism, highlighting its roots in hacker ethos and the internet's impact on facilitating global activist networks. It notes the role of platforms like 4chan in the rise of groups like Anonymous, which epitomise the decentralised, bottom-up and ad-hoc nature of hacktivist actions. The paper also addresses the discursive blurring of the lines between hacktivism, cyberterrorism, and civil disobedience, pointing out the differing motivations and methods that normatively warrant distinguishing these terms. Hacktivism's tactics vary from benign online protests to more aggressive cyber attacks, reflecting diverse political cultures and objectives. The entry underscores the nuanced and evolving nature of hacktivism, touching on the challenges of conceptualising and regulating decentralised bottom-up forms of resistance in the global context. With its multifaceted nature, hacktivism continues to be a significant force in shaping political and social narratives in the digital age.

In sum…

These new entries strive to provide for an enhanced conceptualisation of the processes and theorisation of the various practices emerging from the decentralisation project. They acutely highlight the nuances that the governance of decentralised technosocial systems involve on the political, economic, legal and infrastructural levels. These entries provide valuable insight to researchers from a broad array of disciplines who wish to engage with infrastructural and social systems that are conceptually complex. This addition to the existing terms of the Glossary builds upon the body of knowledge developed therein to achieve important avenues in understanding decentralisation both as a multiplicity of empirically observable technosocial processes and as a conceptual lens with which to scrutinise the governance operated at the various levels of the developing transnational digital economy.