Most distributed networks take the form of Scale-free networks, which are affected by what is called the Power Law. It seems that whenever free and equal nodes start interacting, they automatically create inequality.
Obviously, if we define peer to peer as the relational dynamic at work in distributed network, and these very peer relations create inequality, the kind of P2P civilization which we envisage has some problematic aspects. I therefore make a number of arguments presenting this debate in chapter five of my own manuscript.
I make a number of arguments:
1) we have to look at the function of the hierarchical and leadership elements in such a network. Does the leadership/function increase participation, or does it constrain it. Does it create authoritarian blockages to diminish participation. Therefore, if and when in practice the Power Law occurs, because it is in fact one of the most efficient and sturdy forms of networking, that is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, idealistic market theory would predict that any market would soon create inequality because of differences in abilties. Such a situation would be less problematic, but of course it never occurs, because the existing capitalist markets do not ever allow such pristince beginnings to manifest. Just as in industrial capitalist society there were a lot of measures that could, and have been, taken, to constrain inequality; in an informational society, there will be measures to constrain the inequality of scale-free networks. It’s not a naturalistic law that we are powerless against. Many of the algorhythms used in Web 2.0 type of applications have exacly that purpose: avoid any selective groups to consolidate power, through the creation of objective rules embedded in the design of the software.
2) We have to look at the freedom of the nodes: is the node free or not to create the connections it desires, independently of pre-existing hubs.
In this context, I discovered a remarkable essay by educational expert Stephen Downes, who discusses the problems of the Power Law, and offers a clear alternative to any ‘naturalistic conceptions’ that inequality is just a natural phenomenom against which nothing can be done. I quote extensively, but please do read the part on Knowing Networks, which is the key alternative conception to scale-free networks:
Stephen Downes:
“1. Power Laws and Inequalities
Much of the work in networks has been on what are called ‘scale-free’ networks. A scale-free network is (as people like Barabasi have shown) distinct from a random network in that some entities in the network have a much higher degree of connectedness than others. True, in a random network, there will be a certain variance in distribution, but in a scale free network this variance is extreme. Consider, for example, a network like the internet, where some sites, such as Google, have millions of visitors, while other sites have only one or even none.
A scale-free network of this sort forms through a dynamic process where the presence of one entity leads others to connect to it. For example, consider the act of creating links on a web page. In order to create a useful link, it is necessary to connect to a site that already exists. This means that, all other things being equal, a site that was created first will obtain the most links, because it will have been a candidate for linkage for all subsequent websites, while a site that was created last will have the fewest links, because it has never been a candidate for links.
This effect can be magnified when preferential attraction is considered. For when creating a link on a web page, a designer wants not merely to link to a random page, but to a good page. But how does one judge what counts as a good page? One way is to look at what other people are linking to. The probability that the first page created will be found is greater than that for any other page, which means that the first page will obtain even more links that it would receive through random chance. With this and similar drivers, some websites obtain millions more links than others.
What’s interesting is that though a similar process leads to the formation of scale-free networks in other areas, not in all cases is such an extreme inequality reached. What happens is that in some cases a structural upper limit is reached. Consider, as Barabasi does, the cases of airports and the power grid. Both are developed according to similar principles (airlines want to land flights, for example, where other airlines land flights). And, not unexpectedly, a power-law distribution occurs. But there is an upper limit to the number of aircraft that can land in a single airport, and consequently, a limit to the size of the inequality that can occur.
Various writers (for example Shirkey) write and speak as though the power law were an artifact of nature, something that develops of its own accord. And because it is natural, and because such systems produce knowledge (we will return to this point), it is argued that it would be a mistake to interfere with the network structure. This argument is remarkably similar to the argument posed by the beneficiaries of a similar inequality in financial markets. The rich get richer, benefiting from an inequal allocation of resources, but efforts to change this constitute ‘intereference’ in a ‘natural phenomenon’, the invisible hand of the marketplace, intelligently allocating resources and determining priorities.
This may be true, if we think of networks as natural systems. But the absence of limits to the growth in the connectivity of some nodes should alert us that there is something else going on as well. And it is this: the networks we describe, and in some cases build (or through legislation, protect), are interpretations of the multifarious connections that exist in an environment or in a society. They depend, essentially, on a point of view. And, arguably, the inequalities of links on the web or money in society represent the prevalance of one point of view, or some points of view, over others. But to understand how this could be so, we need to look at networks, not as physical systems, but as semantical constructs, where the organization of links is determined as much by similarity and salience than by raw, epistemologically neutral, forces of nature.”Â
2. Balancing out the power law through connective diversity
“In order therefore to successfully counterbalance the tendency toward a cascade phenomenon in the realm of public knowledge, the excesses made possible by an unrefrained scale-free network need to be counterbalanced through either one of two mechanisms: either a reduction in the number of connections afforded by the very few, or an increase in the denisity of the local network for individual entities. Either of these approaches may be characterized under the same heading: the fostering of diversity.
For, indeed, the mechansism for attaining the reliability of connective knowledge is fundamentally the same as that of attaining reliability in other areas; the promotion of diversity, through the empowering of individual entities, and the reduction in the influence of well-connected entities, is essentially a way of creating extra sets of eyes within the network.”Â
3. Knowing networks as an alternative to scale-free networks
“First, diversity. Did the process involve the widest possible spectrum of points of view? Did people who interpret the matter one way, and from one set of background assumptions, interact with with people who approach the matter from a different perspective?
Second, and related, autonomy. Were the individual knowers contributing to the interaction of their own accord, according to their own knowledge, values and decisions, or were they acting at the behest of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view through quantity rather than reason and reflection?
Third, interactivity. Is the knowledge being producted the product of an interaction between the members, or is it a (mere) aggregation of the members’ perspectives? A different type of knowledge is produced one way as opposed to the other. Just as the human mind does not determine what is seen in front of it by merely counting pixels, nor either does a process intended to create public knowledge.
Fourth, and again related, openness. Is there a mechanism that allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard and interacted with by others?
First, diversity. Did the process involve the widest possible spectrum of points of view? Did people who interpret the matter one way, and from one set of background assumptions, interact with with people who approach the matter from a different perspective?
Second, and related, autonomy. Were the individual knowers contributing to the interaction of their own accord, according to their own knowledge, values and decisions, or were they acting at the behest of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view through quantity rather than reason and reflection?
Third, interactivity. Is the knowledge being producted the product of an interaction between the members, or is it a (mere) aggregation of the members’ perspectives? A different type of knowledge is produced one way as opposed to the other. Just as the human mind does not determine what is seen in front of it by merely counting pixels, nor either does a process intended to create public knowledge.
Fourth, and again related, openness. Is there a mechanism that allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard and interacted with by others?
It is based on these criteria that we arrive at an account of a knowing network. The scale-free networks contemplated above constitute instances in which these criteria are violated: by concentrating the flow of knowledge through central and highly connected nodes, they reduce diversity and reduce interactivity. Even where such networks are open and allow autonomy (and they are often not), the members of such networks are constrained: only certain perspectives are presented to them for consideration, and only certain perspectives will be passed to the remainder of the network (namely, in both cases, the perspectives of those occupying the highly connected nodes).
Even where such networks are open and allow autonomy (and they are often not), the members of such networks are constrained: only certain perspectives are presented to them for consideration, and only certain perspectives will be passed to the remainder of the network (namely, in both cases, the perspectives of those occupying the highly connected nodes).”Â
Commentary by Andrew Smith:
Anyway, I agree with you that scale-free networks do not have all the characteristics of P2P, as you and others envisage them. Though they are quite decentralized, they do feature an “inequality of distribution”. Though the great majority of nodes are about equal in their importance (if we equate importance with connectivity), a few are much more important than others. The fact that personal wealth distribution in the West seems to follow closely a scale-free distribution really tells us all we need to know.
However, scale-free is certainly not the last word in network theory. For example, studies of the internet’s organization, which contribute by far the most to our understanding of networks, have shown that while large portions of it are well-modelled by scale-free behavior, other portions are not. I’m not sure how one would describe these other portions, I’m not sure the people who study these things know, either. But something else seems to be going on, and as the internet continues to expand, and as studies of it also do, we may have a better idea of these other kinds of organization, and their relationship to the development of scale-free systems.
Another point to keep in mind, one I did make in my article on the subject at Visser’s site, is that there are other kinds of organization found in the natural world. It does seem that scale-free is just one kind that appears at certain regular times during development. Thus we see it in the metabolic networks within cells; (probably) in the neural pathways of the brain; and in complex human societies. In my model, these all represent the highest stages of development at a particular level of existence. They appear just as a new level of existence is about to emerge. Development of this new level, though, does not follow scale-free dynamics. In that article, I mentioned other kinds of organization that seem to be more characteristic of early stages of development of new levels, and the examples I gave should not be considered exhaustive.
Having said all this, though, I want to emphasize that I think scale-free organization is extremely important to modern human societies,and that this is not going to change for a long time. While we all have our notions of how society “should” be organized, I think we do have to keep in mind that what actually develops is vastly larger and more complex than any of us, and is likely to follow laws that are to a large extent beyond our manipulation. At this level, we are not talking about molecules or cells that we can manipulate in a laboratory. We are the units, and the very fact that we have certain desires about how society should be organized is itself part of the properties of the system that the final organization reflects. We may think that we are actively trying to change our destiny, but I would say from the point of view of the larger system in which we are all embedded, our efforts to this end are just the natural consequece of units or nodes with certain properties interacting with other nodes with other properties.
In other words…human thought is not the highest form of life. From some higher point of view it may just be another phenomenon that manifests itself in the forms and content that it does because of its relationships to other phenomena. From our point of view, it may appear that we are freely creating new ways of relating to each other, when in fact we are simply along for the ride, with the creation determined by forces beyond our control.