Although it's not in the description, I appreciate a frame that is implied by the title of this session: Disruptions are moments of opportunity. It's not terribly valuable to ask whether these disruptions represent genuine change or a continuation of trends, because the history of technology suggests that they are usually both. (Even nukes were promoted as democratizating.) The real question is this: How can we seize upon the (often temporary) instability created in the forces of reaction by these disruptions to achieve radically greater, more stable structures of democratization?

• Given that empowerment of disempowered people is a positive disruptive force;

• Given that everyone knows something (for example, the local rural bus timetable);
• Given that it is empowering to share what you know, to have others value your knowledge;
• Given that people value things more if the things (including information) are not provided free;

Then what about information barter? - the process where information is traded for other information.

The CyberInstitute is adding to the “cornucopia of the commons” with online information for small businesses in developing countries, and investigating the use of information barter.

For information that is already in the system there are reputational tools. However, for new information coming in, the information barter system is being set up so that it is all judged equally, to encourage everyone to participate, and specifically to empower people.

What do you think?

Prof. Rheingold,

I'm interested in hearing whether you think disruptive networks/events help to increase the possibility of social change by their nature. You've said that it's about "literacy" rather than technology, but even once that literacy is achieved, does the message have to be of a particular type, or is the medium (as it were) enough?

It strikes me that a lot of disruptive events -- flash mobs, electronic civil disobedience, temporary autonomous zones, etc. -- are a kind of prefigurative approach (challenging hegemony by creating an alternative form of existence) rooted in direct democracy. But I'm not sure if that's just because the left (or radicals, or populists) are the ones who mostly adopt these tactics, or if it's inherent to their nature. Could a flash mob be regressive and authoritarian? (Or is that just a riot squad?)