October 14, 2009 at 12:54 Programming Social Interactions
In previous postI raised the question of standardizing teams with which you can manage social interactions on the Internet. As far as I understand, the subject in such a formulation has not been studied much, therefore this text is rather a seed for reflection and discussion. If we take the most “material” (directly observable) aspect, a person on the network is a) a set of content created by him on different resources. In a somewhat less material form, a person is b) a “center of influence” - something that in different ways affects the appearance and disappearance of other people's content. Probably, the culmination of both theses is the assertion that a person in the network (and in society in general) is his name. The same can be said of communities and organizations. Therefore, the management of social interactions of people on the Internet comes down mainly to operations with content.
Content production always takes place in a specific context, which is provided by various services - their functionality and positioning. They explicitly or implicitly specify the types of created content objects, starting from the basic division into text, photos, video and audio, ending with a more detailed typing by genre. Typically, the basic types are explicitly defined in the functional, and the default positioning of the service sets the genre typing. For example, a text can be a commentary, a novel, a thesis, a banter, a verse, etc. Even if the question is posed about abstract operations, they can be implemented only within the framework of a specific service. Therefore, the positioning of such a service should be rather universal (more on that below). But within the limits of this universalism, the usual role of the context will not be fulfilled and all types will have to be declared explicitly. What are all? Genre diversity is quite large and can hardly be completely determined in advance. Therefore, creating a type in such a system turns into a separate operation. This is even more relevant if it is not only about content objects. For example, a person is not a content object, but rather a combination of them, as stated above. In general, the totality is one of the most common things in nature and society. The same communities, social networks, all kinds of human organizations. So it is worth highlighting in a separate type of "many." A type is itself a set; it is a combination of objects into one set according to some common feature. The converse is not always true; if a certain combination is unique, it is by definition not typical. Those. set - the concept is more general and its creation could be used as a basic operation instead of creating a type, and then relate (link) specific objects to specific sets, which would actually mean the typification of these objects. But probably the word “type” (class, variety, genus, etc.) is more familiar to perception, we are used to thinking with known standard types, because
The context that services traditionally define includes not only the definition of object types. Positioning and functionality also explicitly or implicitly define relationships (relationships) between objects when, for example, a specific comment refers to a specific post, video, or other comment. In the environment of our hypothetical universal communication service (as well as types of connections), you also have to specify explicitly.
A noticeable complication associated with the explicit declaration of the types of objects and relationships has, on the other hand, an even more noticeable advantage associated with the fact that the typification of objects ceases to be rigidly fixed, the same objects can belong to different sets. The text can be at the same time a comment, banter and verse, and also belong to the set of all objects (not just texts) created by one author. If this author belongs to a certain community, this text will be associated with this community. And also with a direction in art, if we take it wider. It will also belong to the set of all objects (also not only texts) created on a particular day (month, year, ..). In such a system, one can quickly distinguish specific sets of objects according to various common features. Or detect all communications of one object. Why is this needed? Probably, for different purposes. For research, reflection, analysis, statistics, marketing. For contextual advertising and PR. For the formation of social ties in communities according to detailed classified interests. It is also possible that this is a convenient tool for describing very complex things such as the Large Hadron Collider with all its physical stuffing and infrastructure, related computing infrastructure and software, related development teams, not to mention related ideas. The strategic goal is the environment for creating authoring or collective projects. You create a lot and set the rules for creating content in it. If among the elements of this set other sets are admissible, very complex things can be built. Which are the projects. Although, of course, what a project is is the topic of a separate article. Let's say many projects come down to this, but not all. For example, game things related to the visualization of images are not included here.
This brings us to point b), indicated at the beginning. Man influences the creation of content by others. By direct and formal means, if he is, for example, a moderator or creator of a project. And also implicit and informal, if he has fame and / or authority - he can raise topics that many people begin to discuss, and influence the course of discussions. Democracy options also take place when the decision on punishment is made collectively. But with the activity of the masses, methods of indirect encouragement or disapproval are now more associated with what we have in user voting systems. In the context of the discussion, we are talking about the formalization of these things. From the previous consideration, four operations can be distinguished - the creation of objects and types of objects, relations and types of relations. Creation implies the ability to delete, as well as modify / edit, i.e. get more than four operations. Accordingly, moderator / administrator authority refers to these operations. The only question is in what space do these powers operate. The answer is inside the object. For this, the object must be of a suitable type. Of course, this is the type of "set", but with additional qualifying typification, for example, "community". In complex systems, it becomes necessary to delegate authority when a certain person or community within his (author's) space gives certain powers to other people (including to delegate authority again) and defines the subspaces in which these powers operate. Such a scheme exactly corresponds to what we have in a traditional society in the hierarchies of relations between a boss and a subordinate. Empowerment to perform operations is an action independent of the operations themselves, it should be considered as a separate operation. In which the object of delegation is indicated (a person vested with rights or a lot of people), the scope of rights (objects), the rights themselves.
In the “real” situation, it is possible and often realizable that communities of people (people) delegate to other people (rulers) or communities (for example, deputies) much more authority than they themselves have. But there the powers are much more diverse than the operations here indicated with content and access to such operations. The pyramid of relations between boss and subordinate in a traditional society is based on competencies, money and social ties, as well as on the fact that all this is involved in the framework of common projects. The factor of money in social interactions plays an important role and should be taken into account if it is required to formalize the operations of social interactions in the network. How to formalize it within the framework of the described system of objects - communications? It is possible to connect objects of the money type with objects-people and communities (organizations) - “wallet”, “fund”, “treasury” and so on. In which conditional monetary units will be contained. Apparently, the following operations are necessary with them: 1) establishing (inside a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another object of a monetary type. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. 1) establishing (within a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another monetary type object. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. 1) establishing (within a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another monetary type object. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections.
In terms of formalizing operations, the situation with ratings seems to be similar to the situation with money. An object or objects of the type “rating”, “rank”, “karma”, etc., containing the numerical value of the rating are associated with a certain object (not necessarily a person). We need the ability to increase the rating by a certain amount and reduce it (i.e., we need appropriate operations, as well as the delegation of rights to such operations). Voting systems are different; perhaps someone in their copyright space wants to make different votes for different users. Such things are calculated by mathematical formulas. It turns out that it is necessary to add the usual mathematical operations and functions to the considered operations of “socioprogramming”. This is also necessary for operating with money, for example,
Probably, traditional program instructions and constructs such as if, if - else are also indispensable. Another visible need is the operation of transferring content between content objects.
It would be interesting to come up with a concrete example of program code in such a language that implements some simple project. Let's say it occurred to someone to create a blog space project in which blog posts would be published only after editor’s approval. And editors appoint high-rated bloggers. But this is another time. So far it seems to me that the commands indicated here (instructions, operations) are enough to implement a significant variety of network projects with their help. In conclusion, I briefly recall these operations: several of them relate to operating with content (creating and deleting objects, links and their types), the operation of delegation of authority, several operations with monetary objects and ratings, the operation of transferring content, and all this is complemented by some traditional operations programming. To this list, I would add one more very advanced feature in my opinion, when the visibility of objects and relationships can be manipulated. It’s not necessary, for example, to ban someone (block access to content creation operations), instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it. instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it. instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it.
PS Actually, initially I planned to write only about operations of social interactions, without slipping into the field of elements of traditional programming. However, for some reason, it happened like that. I myself have not had time to think about all this. Moreover, I am not an expert in different things, in programming either. So it’s possible to beat painfully :) Unless of course someone succeeds in reading to the end :)
Content production always takes place in a specific context, which is provided by various services - their functionality and positioning. They explicitly or implicitly specify the types of created content objects, starting from the basic division into text, photos, video and audio, ending with a more detailed typing by genre. Typically, the basic types are explicitly defined in the functional, and the default positioning of the service sets the genre typing. For example, a text can be a commentary, a novel, a thesis, a banter, a verse, etc. Even if the question is posed about abstract operations, they can be implemented only within the framework of a specific service. Therefore, the positioning of such a service should be rather universal (more on that below). But within the limits of this universalism, the usual role of the context will not be fulfilled and all types will have to be declared explicitly. What are all? Genre diversity is quite large and can hardly be completely determined in advance. Therefore, creating a type in such a system turns into a separate operation. This is even more relevant if it is not only about content objects. For example, a person is not a content object, but rather a combination of them, as stated above. In general, the totality is one of the most common things in nature and society. The same communities, social networks, all kinds of human organizations. So it is worth highlighting in a separate type of "many." A type is itself a set; it is a combination of objects into one set according to some common feature. The converse is not always true; if a certain combination is unique, it is by definition not typical. Those. set - the concept is more general and its creation could be used as a basic operation instead of creating a type, and then relate (link) specific objects to specific sets, which would actually mean the typification of these objects. But probably the word “type” (class, variety, genus, etc.) is more familiar to perception, we are used to thinking with known standard types, because
The context that services traditionally define includes not only the definition of object types. Positioning and functionality also explicitly or implicitly define relationships (relationships) between objects when, for example, a specific comment refers to a specific post, video, or other comment. In the environment of our hypothetical universal communication service (as well as types of connections), you also have to specify explicitly.
A noticeable complication associated with the explicit declaration of the types of objects and relationships has, on the other hand, an even more noticeable advantage associated with the fact that the typification of objects ceases to be rigidly fixed, the same objects can belong to different sets. The text can be at the same time a comment, banter and verse, and also belong to the set of all objects (not just texts) created by one author. If this author belongs to a certain community, this text will be associated with this community. And also with a direction in art, if we take it wider. It will also belong to the set of all objects (also not only texts) created on a particular day (month, year, ..). In such a system, one can quickly distinguish specific sets of objects according to various common features. Or detect all communications of one object. Why is this needed? Probably, for different purposes. For research, reflection, analysis, statistics, marketing. For contextual advertising and PR. For the formation of social ties in communities according to detailed classified interests. It is also possible that this is a convenient tool for describing very complex things such as the Large Hadron Collider with all its physical stuffing and infrastructure, related computing infrastructure and software, related development teams, not to mention related ideas. The strategic goal is the environment for creating authoring or collective projects. You create a lot and set the rules for creating content in it. If among the elements of this set other sets are admissible, very complex things can be built. Which are the projects. Although, of course, what a project is is the topic of a separate article. Let's say many projects come down to this, but not all. For example, game things related to the visualization of images are not included here.
This brings us to point b), indicated at the beginning. Man influences the creation of content by others. By direct and formal means, if he is, for example, a moderator or creator of a project. And also implicit and informal, if he has fame and / or authority - he can raise topics that many people begin to discuss, and influence the course of discussions. Democracy options also take place when the decision on punishment is made collectively. But with the activity of the masses, methods of indirect encouragement or disapproval are now more associated with what we have in user voting systems. In the context of the discussion, we are talking about the formalization of these things. From the previous consideration, four operations can be distinguished - the creation of objects and types of objects, relations and types of relations. Creation implies the ability to delete, as well as modify / edit, i.e. get more than four operations. Accordingly, moderator / administrator authority refers to these operations. The only question is in what space do these powers operate. The answer is inside the object. For this, the object must be of a suitable type. Of course, this is the type of "set", but with additional qualifying typification, for example, "community". In complex systems, it becomes necessary to delegate authority when a certain person or community within his (author's) space gives certain powers to other people (including to delegate authority again) and defines the subspaces in which these powers operate. Such a scheme exactly corresponds to what we have in a traditional society in the hierarchies of relations between a boss and a subordinate. Empowerment to perform operations is an action independent of the operations themselves, it should be considered as a separate operation. In which the object of delegation is indicated (a person vested with rights or a lot of people), the scope of rights (objects), the rights themselves.
In the “real” situation, it is possible and often realizable that communities of people (people) delegate to other people (rulers) or communities (for example, deputies) much more authority than they themselves have. But there the powers are much more diverse than the operations here indicated with content and access to such operations. The pyramid of relations between boss and subordinate in a traditional society is based on competencies, money and social ties, as well as on the fact that all this is involved in the framework of common projects. The factor of money in social interactions plays an important role and should be taken into account if it is required to formalize the operations of social interactions in the network. How to formalize it within the framework of the described system of objects - communications? It is possible to connect objects of the money type with objects-people and communities (organizations) - “wallet”, “fund”, “treasury” and so on. In which conditional monetary units will be contained. Apparently, the following operations are necessary with them: 1) establishing (inside a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another object of a monetary type. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. 1) establishing (within a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another monetary type object. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. 1) establishing (within a certain space - a multiple object) the exchange rate in relation to real money, 2) replenishing an account inside a monetary object, 3) cashing out of a monetary object, 4) transferring money to another monetary type object. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections. Accordingly, these operations should be included in the delegation of authority. Another option is also possible if, in addition to objects and relationships, one more entity is introduced - an attribute. For example, human objects will have attributes of money and rating. But in essence, an attribute is an implicit form of connection, and it is not yet clear to me how its introduction would be justified instead of explicit connections.
In terms of formalizing operations, the situation with ratings seems to be similar to the situation with money. An object or objects of the type “rating”, “rank”, “karma”, etc., containing the numerical value of the rating are associated with a certain object (not necessarily a person). We need the ability to increase the rating by a certain amount and reduce it (i.e., we need appropriate operations, as well as the delegation of rights to such operations). Voting systems are different; perhaps someone in their copyright space wants to make different votes for different users. Such things are calculated by mathematical formulas. It turns out that it is necessary to add the usual mathematical operations and functions to the considered operations of “socioprogramming”. This is also necessary for operating with money, for example,
Probably, traditional program instructions and constructs such as if, if - else are also indispensable. Another visible need is the operation of transferring content between content objects.
It would be interesting to come up with a concrete example of program code in such a language that implements some simple project. Let's say it occurred to someone to create a blog space project in which blog posts would be published only after editor’s approval. And editors appoint high-rated bloggers. But this is another time. So far it seems to me that the commands indicated here (instructions, operations) are enough to implement a significant variety of network projects with their help. In conclusion, I briefly recall these operations: several of them relate to operating with content (creating and deleting objects, links and their types), the operation of delegation of authority, several operations with monetary objects and ratings, the operation of transferring content, and all this is complemented by some traditional operations programming. To this list, I would add one more very advanced feature in my opinion, when the visibility of objects and relationships can be manipulated. It’s not necessary, for example, to ban someone (block access to content creation operations), instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it. instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it. instead, the content they produce can be made invisible to certain sets of people. In this “invisibility operation”, you need to specify an object / set that will not see the objects (and possibly connections) produced by another specified human object (or set object). This invisibility chip would be worth a closer look, but there was no room left for it.
PS Actually, initially I planned to write only about operations of social interactions, without slipping into the field of elements of traditional programming. However, for some reason, it happened like that. I myself have not had time to think about all this. Moreover, I am not an expert in different things, in programming either. So it’s possible to beat painfully :) Unless of course someone succeeds in reading to the end :)