The Future Is Another Country

A couple of months or so after becoming Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron wanted a few tips from somebody who could tell him how it felt to be responsible for, and accountable to, many millions of people: people who expected things from him, even though in most cases he would never shake their hands.
He turned not to a fellow head of government but to... Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and boss of Facebook, the phenomenally successful social network. (It announced that it had 500m users) In a wellpublicised online video chat this month, the two men swapped ideas about ways for networks to help governments. Was this just a political leader seeking a spot of help from the private sector--or was it more like diplomacy, a comparison of notes between the s of two great nations
In some ways, it might seem absurd to call Facebook a state and Mr. Zuckerberg its governor. It has no land to defend; no police to enforce law and order; it does not have subjects, bound by a clear cluster of rights, obligations and cultural signals. Compared with citizenship of a country, membership is easy to acquire and give up. Nor do Facebook’s boss and his executives depend directly on the consent of an "electorate (选民)" that can unseat them. Technically, the only people they report to are the shareholders.
But many web-watchers do detect country-like features in Facebook. "It is a device that allows people to get together and control their own destiny, much like a nation-state," says David Post, a law professor at Temple University. If that sounds like a flattering description of Facebook’s "groups" (often rallying people with unusual habits and hatred), then it is worth recalling a classic definition of the modern nationstate. As Benedict Anderson, a political scientist, put it, such polities are "imagined communities" in which each person feels a bond with millions of anonymous fellow-citizens. In centuries past, people looked up to kings or bishops; but in an age of mass literacy and printing in non-official languages, so Mr. Anderson argued, horizontal ties matter more.
So if newspapers and shabby paperbacks can create new social and political units, for which people toil and die, perhaps the latest forms of communication can do likewise. In his 2006 book "Code: Version 2.0", a legal scholar, Lawrence Lessig noted that online communities were transcending the limits of conventional states--and predicted that members of these commnities would find it "difficult to stand neutral in this international space".
To many, that forecast still smacks (带……味道) of cyber-fantasy. But the rise of Facebook at least gives pause for thought, ff it were a physical nation, it would now be the third most populous on earth. Mr. Zuckerherg is confident there will be a billion users in a few years. Facebook is unprecedented not only in its scale but also in its ability to blur boundaries between the real and virtual worlds. A few years ago, online communities evoked fantasy s played by small, strange groups. But as technology made possible large virtual arenas like Second Life or World of Warcraft, an online with millions of players, so the overlap between cyberspace and real human existence began to grow.
From the users’ viewpoint, Facebook can feel a bit like a liberal polity: a space in which people air opinions, rally support and right wrongs. What about the view from the top Is Facebook a place that needs governing, just as a country does Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures, a venture-capital fn-m, has argued that the answer is yes. In the spirit of liberal politics, he thinks the job of Facebook’s managers is to create a space in which citizens and firms feel comfortable investing their time and money to create things.
Facebook has certainly tried to guide the development of its online economy, almost in the way that governments seek to influence economic activity in the real world, :through fiscal (财政的) and monetary policy. Earlier this year the firm said it wanted applications running on its platform to accept its Virtual currency, known as Facebook Credits. It argued that this was in the interests of Facebook users, who would no longer have to use different online currencies for different applications. But this made some developers angry, who resent the fact that Facebook takes a 30% cut on every transaction involving credits.
Like any ruling elite that knows it relies on the consent from the ruled, Facebook seeks advice from its members on questions of governance. It allows users to vote on proposed changes to its terms of service, and it holds online forums to collect views on future policies. And like any well-intentioned politicians, Facebook makes blunders: its members were angry earlier this year by changes to its policy that made public some previously private information. If Mr. Zuckerberg achieves his goal of creating the world’s favourite "social utility", he may need to give users a more formal say--a bit like a constitution.
Experience shows that networks which neglect governance pay a price. Take MySpace, which was once much bigger than Facebook: its growth stalled a couple of years ago when its managers let the site become too disorderly. There is a thin line, it seems, between the that spurs creativity and a freefor-all.
As Facebook’s s present it, their mission is just to make the world more open and connected-and bring closer the "global village" predicted in the 1960s by Marshall MeLuhan, a futurologist they love. Their claim to be accelerators has some force. Facebook’s success "raises a lot of issues that we thought were a generation away," says Edward Castronova, a professor at Indiana University. One of them is how much impact virtual economies and currencies will have on real world ones.
Facebook may also influence how govermnents supply services, and compete to provide them. For instance, the firm allows members to use their Facebook profiles to log into other sites around the web, creating a sort of passport. A similar facility could help people on the move retain access to government. services. And then there is the question of how social networks will change politics. Clearly, they help to stimulate discussion, and they let governments search and test proposals. When Messrs Cameron and Zuckerberg conferred, the main topic was how to get new ideas for cutting public spending.
Like many diplomatic relationships, theirs was not constant. Days after the chat, Facebook was criticised by the British government for allowing tributes to a murderer to be posted. The firm refused to remove the offending page, which was later taken down by its creator. "Facebook is-a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way, as they can and do in many other places," it said. Mr. Zuckerberg may not have any territory, but he was determined to stand his ground.

The Future Is Another CountryThe mission of Facebook’s s is to make the world more open and connected so as to accelerate the prediction of （）

A couple of months or so after becoming Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron wanted a few tips from somebody who could tell him how it felt to be responsible for, and accountable to, many millions of people: people who expected things from him, even though in most cases he would never shake their hands.
He turned not to a fellow head of government but to... Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and boss of Facebook, the phenomenally successful social network. (It announced that it had 500m users) In a wellpublicised online video chat this month, the two men swapped ideas about ways for networks to help governments. Was this just a political leader seeking a spot of help from the private sector--or was it more like diplomacy, a comparison of notes between the s of two great nations
In some ways, it might seem absurd to call Facebook a state and Mr. Zuckerberg its governor. It has no land to defend; no police to enforce law and order; it does not have subjects, bound by a clear cluster of rights, obligations and cultural signals. Compared with citizenship of a country, membership is easy to acquire and give up. Nor do Facebook’s boss and his executives depend directly on the consent of an "electorate (选民)" that can unseat them. Technically, the only people they report to are the shareholders.
But many web-watchers do detect country-like features in Facebook. "It is a device that allows people to get together and control their own destiny, much like a nation-state," says David Post, a law professor at Temple University. If that sounds like a flattering description of Facebook’s "groups" (often rallying people with unusual habits and hatred), then it is worth recalling a classic definition of the modern nationstate. As Benedict Anderson, a political scientist, put it, such polities are "imagined communities" in which each person feels a bond with millions of anonymous fellow-citizens. In centuries past, people looked up to kings or bishops; but in an age of mass literacy and printing in non-official languages, so Mr. Anderson argued, horizontal ties matter more.
So if newspapers and shabby paperbacks can create new social and political units, for which people toil and die, perhaps the latest forms of communication can do likewise. In his 2006 book "Code: Version 2.0", a legal scholar, Lawrence Lessig noted that online communities were transcending the limits of conventional states--and predicted that members of these commnities would find it "difficult to stand neutral in this international space".
To many, that forecast still smacks (带……味道) of cyber-fantasy. But the rise of Facebook at least gives pause for thought, ff it were a physical nation, it would now be the third most populous on earth. Mr. Zuckerherg is confident there will be a billion users in a few years. Facebook is unprecedented not only in its scale but also in its ability to blur boundaries between the real and virtual worlds. A few years ago, online communities evoked fantasy s played by small, strange groups. But as technology made possible large virtual arenas like Second Life or World of Warcraft, an online with millions of players, so the overlap between cyberspace and real human existence began to grow.
From the users’ viewpoint, Facebook can feel a bit like a liberal polity: a space in which people air opinions, rally support and right wrongs. What about the view from the top Is Facebook a place that needs governing, just as a country does Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures, a venture-capital fn-m, has argued that the answer is yes. In the spirit of liberal politics, he thinks the job of Facebook’s managers is to create a space in which citizens and firms feel comfortable investing their time and money to create things.
Facebook has certainly tried to guide the development of its online economy, almost in the way that governments seek to influence economic activity in the real world, :through fiscal (财政的) and monetary policy. Earlier this year the firm said it wanted applications running on its platform to accept its Virtual currency, known as Facebook Credits. It argued that this was in the interests of Facebook users, who would no longer have to use different online currencies for different applications. But this made some developers angry, who resent the fact that Facebook takes a 30% cut on every transaction involving credits.
Like any ruling elite that knows it relies on the consent from the ruled, Facebook seeks advice from its members on questions of governance. It allows users to vote on proposed changes to its terms of service, and it holds online forums to collect views on future policies. And like any well-intentioned politicians, Facebook makes blunders: its members were angry earlier this year by changes to its policy that made public some previously private information. If Mr. Zuckerberg achieves his goal of creating the world’s favourite "social utility", he may need to give users a more formal say--a bit like a constitution.
Experience shows that networks which neglect governance pay a price. Take MySpace, which was once much bigger than Facebook: its growth stalled a couple of years ago when its managers let the site become too disorderly. There is a thin line, it seems, between the that spurs creativity and a freefor-all.
As Facebook’s s present it, their mission is just to make the world more open and connected-and bring closer the "global village" predicted in the 1960s by Marshall MeLuhan, a futurologist they love. Their claim to be accelerators has some force. Facebook’s success "raises a lot of issues that we thought were a generation away," says Edward Castronova, a professor at Indiana University. One of them is how much impact virtual economies and currencies will have on real world ones.
Facebook may also influence how govermnents supply services, and compete to provide them. For instance, the firm allows members to use their Facebook profiles to log into other sites around the web, creating a sort of passport. A similar facility could help people on the move retain access to government. services. And then there is the question of how social networks will change politics. Clearly, they help to stimulate discussion, and they let governments search and test proposals. When Messrs Cameron and Zuckerberg conferred, the main topic was how to get new ideas for cutting public spending.
Like many diplomatic relationships, theirs was not constant. Days after the chat, Facebook was criticised by the British government for allowing tributes to a murderer to be posted. The firm refused to remove the offending page, which was later taken down by its creator. "Facebook is-a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way, as they can and do in many other places," it said. Mr. Zuckerberg may not have any territory, but he was determined to stand his ground.