Hi Culpeper,
Originally Posted by
Culpeper
Like I mentioned on the other thread. Corporate America as well as federal and state governments are already blocking these types of sites in the work place.
You know, this is a pretty basic philosophical issue, and it really comes down to the question of where does responsibility for individual action lie. Personally, I tend to agree more with Selil on this particular one, and my reasoning runs like this.
Assumptions:
Assumption 1. Organizations (actually institutions; organizations are particular instantiations of institutions), in and of themselves, are socio-cultural constructs that have no independent existence outside of the minds of those with whom they interact.
Assumption 2. Humans use organizations as a way to fulfill basic needs (we are pack animals).
Assumption 3. The goal of organizing is to meet these basic needs, and the rules of organizations should be adapted to their operational environment, including that produced by other organizations.
Assumption 4. Organizations operate using one of five basic forms (Weberian "ideal types") of social relationship: Equality Matching (aka "reciprocity"), Authority Ranking (mutual ties of obligations up and down a status ladder), Communal Sharing, Market Exchange or No Relationship (the null set).
Assumption 5. The "best" way (i.e. form of social relationship) to meet a given need in a given environment changes depending on the need and the environment.
Corollary: "Adaptability", for an organization, is the ability of that organization to shift within and between forms of social relationship.
Observations:
Observation 1. "Our" society, i.e. North American and the Western World, has, in general, shifted from a general social form of Authority Ranking to one of Equality Matching, at least in the non-governmental sectors of our lives. As an example, consider the shift in both job search tactics and the concepts of "career" in the private sector. This shift started, at least in North America, in 1968 (disgustingly long Ph.D. dissertation on this available on request 
).
Observation 2. Organizations which use an Authority Ranking relationship require trust that those "in authority" actually do have a better knowledge of the environment of the organization. Organizations that use an Equality Matching relationship require a) trust that all members of the relationship will "keep their word" when they commit it and b) that the collective "knowledge" of the environment is greater than the individual "knowledge" of the environment, even if individuals,regardless of the "position", do not.
Corollary 1: "Responsibility" in Authority Ranking organizations is vested in the organization and the offices that derive from that organization. Ideally, individuals cannot be held responsible for events that are "beyond their pay grade". In an Equality Matching organization, "responsibility" is vested in the individual, not the organization. Ideally, individuals are always held responsible for their decisions, but this responsibility is mitigated by the others in their network.
Corollary 2: Authority Ranking organizations lay out specific, and different, rights, responsibilities and access to resources based on the "rank" of each member of the organization. Changes in rights, responsibilities and access to resources may be "decreed" by the organization. Equality Matching organizations lay out specific, and different, rights, responsibilities and access to resources based on the "ability" and "network position" of each member of the organization. Changes in rights, responsibilities and access to resources must be "negotiated" by individuals within the organization.
Observation 3. Our development of Computer Mediated Communications (CMC) has followed (not led) this general trend: MySpace, Facebook, SWC/SWJ, etc. are all examples of this.
Observation 4. People who have grown up in this new social contract "know" (gnosis or "knowledge from lived experience") that this is "right", and react poorly to "morality" imposed from a different form of social relationship.
Arguments:
Argument 1. Censorship, at the organizational level, is based on a morality inherent in an Authority Ranking social relationship, not an Equality Matching one.
Argument 2. Attempting to impose the morality of one form of social relationship onto people who are operating with another form of social relationship is ridiculous and, inevitably, will fail. The end point of such an attempt is resistance against the organization attempting to do the imposition ("and all Iraqis really want Democracy!!!!").
Corollary Argument 1: the imposition of situationally inappropriate morality will reduce trust in the imposing organizational form.
Corollary Argument 2: the argument that "all organizations" do X is invalid. It is an attempt to project a particular value into a universal value.
Conclusions:
Conclusion 1: Morality must be appropriate to the social form that members of the organization perceive holds in a particular area. Since CMC is an area which is dominated by Equality Matching, an appropriate form of morality should be applied, and this is one of individual responsibility for actions within a network, no one of censorship.
Expansion: Please note that the concept of "operational security" is generally accepted and operate on an Authority Ranking model - in this instance, OPSEC is governed by a different morality and censorship is appropriate.
Conclusion 2: Attempts by the US Military to impose censorship "randomly" will lead to a decrease in trust of the US military (as an organization) as "knowing what it is doing".
Expansion: This decrease in trust will affect all areas that operate under an Authority Ranking form of social relationship. This will lead to a growing "disillusionment" with the AR component of the US Military, and act as a goad for people to leave and/or "work around" (if they stay) the AR system.
Case Observation: Consider the discussions on the
Contrary Peter Principle and the
Officer Critical Skills Retention Bonus as examples.
Hmmm, I hadn't intended to run on this long .
Marc
Bookmarks