
Aaron Swartz’s Theory on How to Save the World - ghosh
https://backchannel.com/aaron-swartzs-theory-on-how-to-save-the-world-b3401bf79d99#.8tdx6ebw8
======
pella
>Swartz claimed that the Joker is actually “homo economicus, a supremely
rational actor ...

arXiv:1103.3257: The Joker effect: cooperation driven by destructive agents
(2011)

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3257](https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3257)

Keywords: public goods, cooperation, destructive agents, cycles

Abstract: _" Understanding the emergence of cooperation is a central issue in
evolutionary game theory. The hardest setup for the attainment of cooperation
in a population of individuals is the Public Goods game in which cooperative
agents generate a common good at their own expenses, while defectors "free-
ride" this good. Eventually this causes the exhaustion of the good, a
situation which is bad for everybody. Previous results have shown that
introducing reputation, allowing for volunteer participation, punishing
defectors, rewarding cooperators or structuring agents, can enhance
cooperation. Here we present a model which shows how the introduction of rare,
malicious agents -that we term jokers- performing just destructive actions on
the other agents induce bursts of cooperation. The appearance of jokers
promotes a rock-paper-scissors dynamics, where jokers outbeat defectors and
cooperators outperform jokers, which are subsequently invaded by defectors.
Thus, paradoxically, the existence of destructive agents acting
indiscriminately promotes cooperation."_

~~~
aaron-lebo
Are there any historical examples of "a joker"? The sole example cited by the
article is Nazi Germany which forced the US and the USSR to work together for
a short time. That doesn't to me seem to be a real example of a "joker"
however, that's just the enemy of my enemy being my friend kind of thing.
Hitler wasn't just fucking things up for the sake of it, but had a very
specific world he was trying to create. The Joker wanted chaos, or if he
wanted anything else, doesn't tip his hand, being an unreliable source of
information. How many different ways did he get those scars?

I'm just asking because scholarly articles about the actions of fictional
psychopaths seem a bit much. Especially when we are talking about applying it
to entire groups of people (nations) without some good examples. Note, this is
also different than Swartz's or the author's suggestion - that this
cooperation was intended. That's not implied by the movie, nor the joker of
the article. This is the first paragraph:

 _In the recent Hollywood movie The Dark Knight (2008) the comic character
known as the Joker jeopardizes a whole society spreading chaos and destruction
with no aim of benefit at it._

That's not Nazi Germany (the sixth paragraph or so and example). Hitler may
have had a fucked up sense of societal benefit, but that was his goal, not
wanton destruction (at least until he went completely crazy).

~~~
nostrademons
I'd expect such characters to get written out of the histories fairly quickly.
The point of a "joker" is that they're purely destructive and don't work in
anyone's self-interest, not even their own; thus, they're eventually defeated
and have nobody that cares about them enough to keep their memory alive.

But thinking about a few examples: Julian Assange is a modern-day joker, with
Wikileaks indiscriminately publishing damaging info about many different
institutions (several of which would otherwise be at odds with each other).
Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who assassinated William Mckinley, who ironically
spurred both cooperation _among_ anarchists and cooperation _against_
anarchists. Heck, the traditional description of Satan very much is the in
line with the joker archetype, which makes me wonder if his depiction in
religion is a composite of various joker-like characters that people have
faced but not wanted to remember.

------
pieter1976
I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by
this community. It is tragic that he took his own life and I fully expect to
be downvoted here for expressing this opinion as it is a thing you can't say
here
([http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)).

~~~
scrollaway
He was young, showed great promise, was clearly ahead of his age, everybody
who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...

Is it really _that_ surprising that people are genuinely upset he took his own
life after being harassed by the US government? This is a community that tends
to dislike extreme prosecution, copyright laws and generally agrees with
Aaron's ideology.

And on another note: Can HN not care about a guy without people saying we're
"raising him to demi-god status"? With how often that accusation is thrown
around, you'd think we have enough to sell our demi-god surplus to cults in
need of more.

PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for
reddit, not here, tbh.

~~~
codingdave
But he didn't really show great promise. He dropped out of high school. He
dropped out of college. (At least according to the article... I didn't know
him.) He didn't hold jobs. He broke laws, even if for arguably good reasons.
He didn't get the legal help he needed. He didn't get the psych help he
needed. And his life ended in tragedy.

He may have been a great guy. He may have been nice and caring. But he is not
a great role model, no matter how much people wish he could have been.

~~~
carlmcqueen
Probably biased because I knew Aaron[1] but if you've read his fundamental
belief on schools[2], which he held very early, it is not a big surprise that
he didn't finish the process.

He didn't fit in that mold, as many didn't here. His mind didn't fit in the
rule following process at all, which honestly IS what showed his great
promise. He was capable of more and brave enough to try.

While I don't like post humous articles that use someone else to push your
ideas, someone who can't speak for themselves anymore, this comment just made
me sad.

[1] Same high school, a few years older. [2]
[https://newrepublic.com/article/127317/school](https://newrepublic.com/article/127317/school)

------
allenleein
First: free information

Quotes from Aaron Swartz:

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it
for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published
over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and
locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers
featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send
enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

From:[https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...](https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt)

------
nickpsecurity
Aaron Swartz seemed to not know how the world actually worked. It isn't a
bunch of rational actors that love tech and information. Quite the opposite.
One can't save the world without first diving deep into how it works. One then
realizes there's stuff they can and can't change on top of lots of biases and
trends in responses. Then, one builds on those elements of human nature to
focus on the things they can change.

He didn't do that. Instead, he focused on what can't be changed by committing
an illegal act with hope it would be meaningful to society or courts. The
result was that he killed himself after that failed catastrophically. We might
learn a great deal from Aaron Swarts but not how to change the world. He's the
least qualified to tell us about that because it appears he never understood
it to begin with.

Instead, we can just learn from and remember the good things he did that his
mind was uniquely capable of doing. He has quite a resume of that. This
approach is honest and gives him due credit.

~~~
RodericDay
Funny, under the excuse that they're "[d]iving deep into how it works", tons
of people do absolutely nothing other than become wealthy and give their kids
as many breaks as possible, while giving excuses to not acting in any way.

I hear it often called "being a realist". I consider it a pretty evil self-
reassuring meme of our times. We're ready to believe we can go to Mars and
live forever, but anyone fighting "Human Nature" (read: our current economical
and political arrangement) is a fool.

"Don't be naive, we've figured human nature out. It wants malls and 60 hour
work-weeks!"

~~~
nickpsecurity
Re become wealthy. I was thinking of Andrew Carnegie when trying for an
example of young man who understood the world, got people, and changed it. For
himself as you said. That's incidental, though, as s the methods are neutral
to the end goal.

Re being realist. It means you need to understand the context you operate in
before you can change it. All the successful people did. Most failures that
werent just bad luck didnt. The very example you gave about work weeks was
improved by realists in various businesses who wanted it and could execute it
within a sustainable model.

~~~
RodericDay
We have very different views of progress I guess. When I think of people who
changed the world, my mind doesn't automatically jump to Elon Musk or Andrew
Carnegie.

I think of hard-won victories like Canada instituting Universal Health Care
(starting in the less-known province of Saskatchewan), or people marching for
Civil Rights and Labor Rights, all the while experts told them those things
were unattainable and unrealistic. I think many people in those movements
understood the system, just not in the way that the system approved of being
understood.

Martin Luther King Jr. has a great line about this:

> _First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely
> disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable
> conclusion that the Negro 's great stumbling block in his stride toward
> freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the
> white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers
> a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which
> is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the
> goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who
> paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's
> freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises
> the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from
> people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from
> people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than
> outright rejection._

I think the equivalent to that "white moderate" today is the person who thinks
that anyone rocking the boat and making demands today, like Swartz, is
"naive". They wisely and patiently wait for a benevolent billionaire to save
the day instead. The fact that they, too, benefit from the status quo and find
the current situation very tolerable is a mere coincidence.

I hope, since you freely imply that the absent Swartz was naive, that you have
no problem with me calling you naive as well.

\--

edit: I too enjoy discussing things, but as soon as the conversation branches
out it gets a bit messy.

I just want to say that it's a deliberate mistake to judge past movements from
their white-washed idealized educational versions. It disconnects them from
the messy reality of activism, and from their current-day representatives.

Replies below are saying basically "The Civil Rights leaders acted decisively
and with wisdom, compared with this haphazard unorganized random act today".
At the time, this is how this was portrayed by detractors:

[https://storage.synaptic.att.com/rest/objects/4a08bf2ea31f2e...](https://storage.synaptic.att.com/rest/objects/4a08bf2ea31f2e1704f5012314b18004f5ff1c88d017?uid=7be5f8cb9eb14188b0e40ae93aca2099%2FkingcenterATpalantirDOTnet&expires=1590984000&signature=epQQlbck7oWu9lum4AiRa9Yepk8%3D)

You are welcome to look through MLK Jr.'s correspondence too:

[http://www.thekingcenter.org/genre/correspondence](http://www.thekingcenter.org/genre/correspondence)

People calling his movement all over the place, erratic, etc. It's
fascinating. Many, many people telling him and his ilk they were unrealistic
and jumping the gun with ineffective direct action. A complete erasure of the
dynamics MLK had with Malcolm X (good cop, bad cop). The FBI also conspired to
try to get him to commit suicide, by blackmailing him
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter)).

If the future Swartz was aiming for ever becomes reality, he will be
remembered as a pioneer.

~~~
snarf21
This is a very interesting thread and I personally think that you are both
right. The big problem is that any of these things that need fixed are
_really_ complicated. The most successful approaches have to have a multi-
prong plan.

You do partially need to be a realist. You aren't going to be able to convince
all people to ride a bicycle because it is good for the environment. You also
need to be pragmatic. Take a targeted approach to go after the low hanging
fruit, get the biggest bang for your buck. However, there are times when you
will have to break free from the status quo and that won't be easy. Sometimes
people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future, but this is
_so_ hard. People like MLK understood that it was possible and put in the work
(and was willing to pay the many costs) to force change.

Very few causes have the leader with a simple plan and the charisma to inspire
others and the fortitude to see it through no matter the cost. Take a look at
how quickly Occupy Wall Street faded into nothing. People will always fear
change and getting them to become a more selfless actor is no trivial matter.

~~~
nickpsecurity
An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions. They need
specifics that are easy to understand and act on. MLK's was to pass
legislation banning discrimination. To this day, I still havent seen a plan of
action when someone pushes Occupy.

In this case, they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second
popular support shows up. Here's a subset of what r a alists might do in this
topic:

1\. All taxpayer-funded research goes into public domain. All existing
copyrights for such research goes into public domain.

2\. Since it matters to academics, the articles can be published in specific
journals for visibility or prestige. However, they must provide online access
to them for a flat, cheap rate applied monthly or annually. That's for
unlimited articles.

3\. Private research can be copywritte to generate revenue for authors. Might
put a limit on what they can charge or for how long.

All that codified into a law called Taxpayers Get Their Research Act. Has a
website, premade letters, and so on. Low friction. One or more celebrities
reference it in the media promoting it. Make sure personas for major
demographics justifying it from their viewpoints. Swarms of people start
emailing or writting letters that might lead to some or all of it passing.
Optionally rich people throwing cash at lobbyists for the same bill.

 _That_ is how realists go for open access. Personally, I do my part by
digging up linkz to key, paywalled papers from Wayback machine or other odd
sources. Then send it to people that might use it.

~~~
RodericDay
> An important thing to consider is people cant act on abstractions

> "they need pre-packaged solution ready to go to lawmakers second popular
> support shows up"

Again, I don't know how to describe this other than ahistorical. I would say
people actually love acting on abstractions, like the pursuit of liberty or
happiness, trusting they can figure out details as they go along. It's
certainly the advice given to most startup founders ("hash things out a little
so they make sense, figure the rest out as you go along, for you can't predict
everything"). I just wrapped up Hamilton's biography not long ago, and the
process was certainly nothing like people buying into a solid policy proposal.

Aaron Swartz doesn't need to be a one-man-revolution. He can do some radical
inspiring acts, and then let Lawrence Lessig hash out some technical
implementation details. This is how things actually work. You don't just
inspire "popular" support, like the people are some thing to be manipulated
for votes. The technocrats and administrators are just as vulnerable and in
need of inspiration and new possibilities.

Dividing the world neatly into idealists and realists is like that quote
"conservative at 20? heartless. liberal at 40? clueless." Sounds like an even
assessment to both parts, but it's actually conservative propaganda saying
that one is the tough true conclusion.

Same with a history of world progress that pretends that the only people ever
worth following presented unchallenged, obvious avenues for change that
everyone sensible agreed upon at once. Things that seem sensible now, like
women voting, were not only met by vitriol by misogynists, but also with "lack
of realism" by moderates.

~~~
snarf21
I think he did need to be a one-man-revolution, at least somewhat.

From the article: “Because he moved from thing to thing fairly rapidly, that
actually ended up imposing a cost, so that people were wary about starting a
really big project with him because they worried he wouldn’t stick around,”
said Ben Wikler. “That was a reasonable concern to have.”

Human nature is fickle. If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When
everything is most important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism
and most things in life. Things need time to bake, be refined, find what
resonates, find easier paths, etc. This is why I still believe you need to be
part realist, part pramatist and part rebel and likely at different ratios
through the project's life.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"If he didn't focus, then why would any followers. When everything is most
important, nothing is. This is true in business, activism and most things in
life"

Same problem I had according to many. Still have to less of a degree. The
trick to pulling it off successfully requires quite a bit of money that's
recurring. It was Edison's: stay on all kinds of projects long enough to make
significant advance in each with lab or production workers that would take it
the rest of the way. The generalists need specialists committed to the long
term that build on their ideas.

Now, we're talking about I.P. law specifically. That's not going to change
without large amounts of money going into lobbying (same way it was created)
or huge swaths of people focusing their energy on their representatives with
intention to vote for the opponent if no action occurs. These options were
available to him and people he knew. He didn't try them. Instead, he did some
speeches and a one-off act that could never cause a large movement in the U.S.
that would counter I.P. law. Most people simply wouldn't sympathize with combo
of topic and his [criminal] actions enough for it to make those waves.

~~~
snarf21
I agree with you. Plus his biggest challenge was/is how to make people care.
Everyone has an iPhone and Netflix and a flat screen, so they think "how again
is this situation so bad for me?", because to them it is pretty freaking
awesome. How do you convince non tech people that Google is bad for them? That
Facebook (that they spend 2 hours a day on) is really bad for them from a
monopoly/privacy/etc. perspective? Most people could give a crap about
security and privacy and competition as long as they get to do the things they
want.

(I do think we need major IP reform but I think we need other things more....)

~~~
nickpsecurity
Good points. I've made an attempt at Facebook that you might find useful.
Really tricky because one must assume a lay audience and appeal to those in
high school. I welcome feedback on these especially in form of examples for my
Gossip model that map to actual Facebook events.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_app...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/ephemeral_apps.html#c5259463)

~~~
snarf21
I think the following saying (from Andrew Lewis, not me) captures it very
simply. "If you aren't paying for a service, it is because you are the product
not the customer." We are the product FB (et. al.) sells, we are not its
customer. There is always a price to be paid, sometimes it is not money.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I liked that and tried it on lots of laypersons for a few months. Almost none
of them understood it without a lot kf explanation. It's no good if we're
going for impact. Might do as a supplement.

------
jokoon
Sounds like electing Trump is one of those "out-corrupt the corrupters"
strategies.

Not sure if I'm right.

EDIT: anyway I don't really agree with those theories, I would not base my
political science out of comics, but I found the similarity odd.

------
tps5
The argument about "the Joker being the hero" reminds me of a Borges short
story, "Three versions of Judas."

In the story, Borges recounts a (fictional) theologian's slow realization
that, in the New Testament story, it was Judas rather than Jesus who made the
greatest sacrifice. Following this argument, this theologian eventually comes
to the conclusion that Judas was the incarnation of God, not Jesus. Without
Judas, he argues, the redemption of Man could not have occurred.

Unsurprisingly, the Church doesn't like this version of the story and Borges'
fictional theologian dies in anonymity.

~~~
stinkytaco
>Unsurprisingly, the Church doesn't like this version of the story and Borges'
fictional theologian dies in anonymity.

A diversion: Judas is the representation of one of the great dividers in
Christianity. To forgive Judas is to deny free will. One of the things that
one could take away from the gospels is that choices were made a consequences
occurred. If it hadn't been Judas it would have been Peter, and so on. Judas
was not acting as an agent.

Catholics believe in free will and they believe in punishment (penance,
purgatory, etc.). Luther, and many protestant sects, do not believe in free
will as such. Either is there is no free will, or if there is, forgiveness
more or less wipes it out.

The reason I mention this is that I can really see the influence of protestant
thinking in Western society. The tendency to look at all actors as part of a
larger "system" rather than individuals with agency that may or may not
deserve punishment or reward based strictly on their merit. I find that
interesting given this discussion. There's acknowledgment of dealing with
individual choices, but as part of creating an optimal systemic outcome.

EDIT: This is also one of the reasons studying literature is an important
effort. It gives us something of a window into a cultural world view. Here I'm
reminded of the Iliad. Our tendency today is to admire Hector, but the Greeks
would not have. He was part of a city and that city had sinned. There are no
individuals. Fatalism is strong in Greek literature. It doesn't matter how
good or bad a person you are.

------
digi_owl
That has to be the single most weird take on the Joker character in ages...

BTW, homo economicus is the single most dangerous concept that has come out of
the "science" of economics.

------
ommunist
Actually modern developments technically allow bot activism. If a legal bot
can resolve your legal case, or (legalrobot for instance) can review your
contract, why not to give bots power to represent your points and tirelessly
petition?

------
aaron-lebo
I don't know anything about the guy other than having used Infogami
(underrated) and followed early Reddit, but Swartz was always a brilliant but
troubled guy. He was very intelligent but also just a kid, figuring things out
in his own life while the tech world figured itself out. What happened to him
was a tragedy, but Swartz engaged in illegal activity and found out his
opponent was a lot more committed and effective than he anticipated. Unless he
became Mandela in prison that wasn't an effective strategy.

 _In his essay, Swartz strongly supported the Joker’s policy platform.
Although the Joker presents himself to the world as a deranged and murderous
clown, Swartz claimed that the Joker is actually “homo economicus,” a
supremely rational actor, the character who best understands both the problems
facing Gotham City and the best solutions to those problems. Batman might have
had better gear and Harvey Dent might have had the public’s sympathy—but the
Joker understood game theory, the best weapon of all._

 _Though the Joker’s methods—such as burning large piles of money and blowing
up hospitals—might have been controversial, the logic behind them was sound.
“And the crazy thing is that it works!” Swartz enthused. Not only did the
Joker end up ridding the city of organized crime, he convinced Gotham’s
residents to re-evaluate their world and their roles in it. “The movie
concludes by emphasizing that Batman must become the villain,” Swartz wrote,
“but as usual it never stops to notice that the Joker is actually the hero.”_

This is absurd (at least how it is portrayed by the author). In Nolan's movie
the Joker is never portrayed as anything but a contradictory psycopath who
engages in torture killings and according to his own words has no plans. He's
a "dog chasing cars", even if that behavior was still rational. What solution
did the Joker have again? The author closes with it, as though it's profound,
but it's really just a screwed up view of justice that isn't even supported by
the movie.

 _In his working paper, Swartz described his new plan for the future of
activism. Rather than form a political action group focused on one single
issue or tactic, Swartz proposed that organizers should assemble groups of
people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators,
activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists,
journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate
effectively for any issue, big or small. Swartz envisioned a flexible,
intelligent, multifaceted task force that would learn from its mistakes and
refine its tactics accordingly: a team of specialists that, cumulatively,
worked as generalists._

From a practical standpoint, this is interesting, though it sounds ripe for
abuse and mob justice. How different is it from Wikileaks or even Anonymous?
Isn't the problem with such a system is everyone always thinks they are the
good guys?

Just please stop with the psychohistory and hagiography. Stop trying to say
what Swartz was thinking (the author does this throughout). You don't know. If
you want to compete with reality you have to be realistic. Stop using his
persona to support vague notions of how the world works.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _From a practical standpoint, this is interesting, though it sounds ripe for
> abuse and mob justice. How different is it from Wikileaks or even Anonymous?
> Isn 't the problem with such a system is everyone always thinks they are the
> good guys?_

I'm wary of such universal teams which abstract away their own _raison d
'être_. This is what gave us the modern - how I like to call them - toilet
paper companies, i.e. companies which couldn't give a rat's ass about _what_
they're making, as long as it is profitable (and that would gladly switch from
building medical devices to making toilet paper if that had better ROI - hence
the name). I can't deny such focus on gaming the structure is effective - much
like MBAs with abstract knowledge of how to run a money-making machine are
effective at doing just that - to the detriment of all customers, who actually
care about _the products_.

~~~
RodericDay
A PoliSci professor just released a political theory book called "Marx's
Inferno" (the thesis is that Marx structured Capital like Dante's journey
through hell in The Divine Comedy). It's very coherent with the thoughts
you're voicing here. It's also a re-visit of Marx's theories in general.

One of my interpretations: if the invisible hand of the market describes the
powerful ability of markets to turn self-interested actors into producing
general welfare improvements by competing: cutting costs, producing
innovation, etc.

Then, the invisible hand of the market must obviously have the same impact on
good outliers. If you are trying to do something evil beyond what the market
will bear, you're out of luck. If you're trying to do something good beyond
what the market will bear, though, you're just as out of luck.

He goes very in depth into the fact that expressing our desires via revealed
preferences in exchange/commerce removes a lot of our ability to voice what is
exactly what we want.

