|Este juego quiere dar una perspectiva de distintos modelos económicos y sociales de comunicación en red, para concienciar acerca de sus diferencias y/o similitudes, basándose en distintos momentos de la historia de Internet. Un juego concebido para el Segundo Mercado de Intercambio de Conocimientos, organizado por Platoniq (Barcelona, 2008).|
P2P versus Web 2.0 - Network Economics: The Game
Published on 01/08/2009 - Games and methodologies
Games, Tecnology reappropiation, ICTs, Analogies of digital, Telecommunications, Web 2.0, Communication tools
Related with: Venture Communism
In the third round messages still pass freely but the money passed from communicator/operator to communicator/operator is now passed on to the banker, symbolizing the increasing investments necessary to be an operator as the internet changes.
4 - Web 2.0, Capital finance kills peer to peer.
In the fourth round we show how nodes that don't co-operate cannot afford to operate and so the cop, censor and lobbyist make a comeback by controlling the operator via the banker.
1. The first round of this exercise will simulate the era of online communications in the times of CompuServe and illustrate how control is made possible by the centralized path of communications. Two or more people play the role of Communicators, they try to pass information to each other written by hand on pieces of paper. One person plays the role of the Censor, one plays the role of the Cop and one plays the role of the Lobbyist and one person plays the role of the Operator. All communicators pass all their messages (each message accompanied by a token) to the operator who passes the message on and Keeps the token. The members of the civil society can intercept the messages and inFluence / dethrone the operator. Communicators are advised not to spend all their money in the first round. Otherwise they will find themselves on the other side of the digital divide – without access!
2. The next round of the exercise, the P2P version, simulates a peer to peer network, where any person can send a message to any other person without having to go through any particular node. Communicators pass their hand-written messages freely from one to another. There is no Operator, messages can be passed through any third party that is willing to pass them. The token passes with the message and remains with the thrid party passing the message on (the communicator/operator). Interceptions by lobbyist, censor and cop are much more difficult as the members of civil society can only guess which way messages will go. No single operator can be influenced or pressured.
3. In the third round we illustrate the dot com bust. As money and messages are passed from communicator/operator to communicator/operator the money slowly gets drawn out of the system. Paying the token to the next communicator/operator, the operator will now not only pass the message to the final target but will also have to pass the token on to the banker - who was passive for the previous rounds – and is possibly the leader of the exercise. This round ends when communication becomes impossible as most communicators are unable to pay their way.
4. In the fourth round, the Web 2.0 excercise, we will see how the money now works against the peer to peer aspects and helps bring back control and centralization. The banker has all the money. He divides his money between the members of civil society. Any communicator or former operator can „apply" for funding to become a Community Platform Operator. While the communicators do not have to pay any money in order to pass their messages to the operator who will pass them on, the operator has to pay the banker for each message passed. The Censor, the Cop and the Lobbyist can intercept messages either via financial incentives to the operator.
HOW TO IMPROVE IT / ADVICE FOR USE
What kind of messages should the communicators pass?
Whatever they want, secrets, poems, slogans, anything ... Hopefully something that encourages a response!
What is the criteria of the censor to intercept the messages or remove the operator?
The censor and the other interceptors can intercept all messages to any single recipient at a time. The interceptors can change the operator any time two of them agree to do so, meaning that the operator will always need to keep them happy or lose the position.
Note for extra fun:
The communicators can use their own system to *encrypt* messages and thus keep them from being intercepted. The censor/cop/lobbyist could (not) know the decryption key.
The way the banker divides the money in the fourth round can be varied, giving for example the lobbyist more money than the censor which influences the power they can excert over the operator. Or the banker can finance operators directly – this is the advanced version. Independent operators (left over from the CompuServe era or other communicators/operators retaining capital) may also become financiers in the fourth round.
Page: 1| 2