Roskomnadzor, which we deserve
On Habré there is a subject tabooed more, than a blowjob . This is politics. Therefore, I ask you to perceive my article as an article exclusively of a social orientation. Do not even look for hints of politics.
I’ll start with a slight provocation: I will say that the IT community is to some extent to blame for the fact that we have crap in the porches, there aren’t enough kindergartens and trees, instead of the normal building, people’s rooms appear and then on the list. And also in the appearance of various questionable effectiveness of rules and organizations.
Since I wanted to address the article to the IT community, I publish (at least, try) it on Habré.
I live in Moscow. But I think that our Russian problems are relevant for many of our neighbors and friends from the post-Soviet space.
And now I’ll try to explain my statement from the second paragraph. I ask you in advance to forgive me for style, spelling and punctuation - the Russian language has never been my forte. Which, of course, I am ashamed of and trying to fix.
I’ll start by explaining what a “comfortable environment” is in my understanding. It is about her (in many ways) that will be discussed, therefore this is important. So, a comfortable environment is, suddenly, such an environment in which it is convenient and comfortable for a person to live. In my understanding, this is a very broad concept. Our comfort depends not only on the number of parks, the state of the front rooms and the convenience of the transport system. It also depends on the environmental situation, the quality and accessibility of education, the availability of economic support of various kinds, public and unwritten rules by which we live. There are a lot of factors influencing the comfort of our life. They are different, they can be both interconnected and not.
Question: who and what affects the level of comfort of our living environment? In my opinion, these are mainly people. Firstly, those who directly exist in this environment. Ordinary residents and citizens. The person who litter at the entrance makes the life of neighbors less comfortable. Unlike the one who does not do such nasty things. But there is a second group of people. Rather, it is even a subset: after all, they also live somewhere. These are people who, by occupation, are responsible for the development of a comfortable environment and use for this purpose funds received, in one form or another, from society. Those. from citizens, organizations, state. This, for example, education departments, municipal managers, mayors, management companies, etc. Those. people specially allocated from society who must solve special problems in the interests of the good and development of society.
For convenience, I will nevertheless divide these people into two conditional groups: “residents” and “managers” (hereinafter - without quotation marks). They have different, although partially overlapping, levels of influence on the comfort of the environment. Residents can influence the environment on a personal level (do not throw garbage anywhere, be polite and friendly) and at the most basic, basic general level. Improvement of the entrance or courtyard, organization on a voluntary basis of some events, etc. - this may be included in their level of environmental impact. But, for example, major landscaping work, transport infrastructure, or the decision that instead of a wasteland it is necessary to build a skyscraper in the historical center is already the level of managers.
And if residents are quite active, and managers responsibly and optimally perform their tasks, then the comfort of the environment, ceteris paribus, is growing. But we will return from the land of pink dreams to the sinful earth - this does not happen as often as we would like. And where it happens, it could happen faster. And in some places there is even, let’s say, regression.
Catch a couple of dozen people on the street. Ask if everything is safe for them in the stairwell, whether their children are good in the kindergarten / school and if there are any social problems at all in their place of residence. You will see that almost everyone has problems: a redneck neighbor with a private parking on the lawn, where the dark entrance is scary, a school where the educational level tends to be middle for the 16th century, etc. Even in very elite places there are problems.
I want to make a reservation right away: if you think that living in the same concrete boxes, walking the streets in respirators and giving 86% of your salary to the fund to help the widows of heroes of star wars is normal for some reason, then you’ll rather total, it will not be very interesting to read. If you, like me, think that the environment in which you live should (in all senses) develop and become more comfortable, then I will continue to cry about my opinion on this matter.
I'll start with the level of influence of residents on the comfort of their living environment.
Do people want to live better and more comfortable? On the whole and in general - yes, they want. The desire to live better is one of the basic human desires. The complete absence of such a desire is a sign of serious problems. Of course, this is “better” for everyone a little different. It is also clear that in many cases people want to make their own life better, rather than some kind of common life. But, you must admit that driving along broken roads on an expensive car with filters in the climate system, so that you can run 100 meters through a dark courtyard and stinky porch to your Italian tile behind a sealed bulletproof door - this is by no means the top quality of life. You can, of course, save up money for some elite residential complex and finally isolate yourself from the outside world. For someone, this is the ultimate dream. To live in a fenced three-meter-high fence with towers of paradise, in the midst of heaps you know what. But once the outside world will surely try to remind itself and dunk headlong into all the slops that it has accumulated there. So such an exit seems to me rather dubious.
From my point of view, the quality and comfort of life depends, inter alia, on what surrounds us, but does not belong to us personally . From the condition of our porch, parks, urban infrastructure, clean air, etc. etc.
But do all people look at the world exclusively selfishly? Let's mentally transport ourselves to some small city 200 kilometers from Moscow, where, let’s say, people live more modestly than in the capital. What will we see there? Of course, swans from the tires at the porches. In company with flower beds, flower beds and garden gnomes. Not everywhere, of course, but we'll see. And this is very important: we discovered someone’s personal attempts to improve public space and increase the comfort of the environment. This is evidence thatthere are people with the desire to improve the quality of their (and others') lives by transformations of non-personal property . Of course, similar phenomena exist in large cities, but they, as a rule, take other forms. I just could not get past this amazing example of folk art. I will not dwell on the aesthetic component, the fact of the existence of this phenomenon is important to me.
So, I came to the conclusion that residents can independently transform some part of the environment to increase its comfort. But, for some reason, they usually don’t. Or they do it in person, which is not always good (more on that later). I live in Moscow, undoubtedly the richest city in my country. But, contrary to stereotypes, it is easier than ever to find devastation and disgust in their most diverse manifestations and scales. Initially, I wanted to insert here a photograph that I took in my friend’s entrance. But then I decided that I would not post such shock content. Just imagine that someone got a mouthful of seeds, chewed them and spat out in the elevator mirror from a distance of a meter. Presented? And this is a normal house in the area inside the Moscow Ring Road with very expensive real estate: near the metro, park, kindergartens, schools. But the porch looks worse than the old "monkey" in the district police department. To be in this entrance, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable. And most of them live quite ordinary and adequate Moscow residents. Why is this happening?
Of course, there are many reasons. One of them is that the entrance from the paragraph above is not felt by the area of personal responsibility by any large percentage of the inhabitants of this entrance. This is the "territory of the management company." Whose responsibility is, by and large, only to maintain some semblance of order, to fulfill certain standards and periodically repair the entrance in the form of updating a pink “coat” on the walls and laying cheap tiles of a painful color on the floor. They’re not doing it for themselves. People are rather dismissive of such repairs, if only because it is ugly. And also because it is “state-owned”: according to their feelings, they “got it for it” (which, most likely, is far from true). Many probably noticed (perhaps even on their own) that the attitude to personal and “treasury” property can vary greatly among the same people. People with this “bifurcation” can live in a sterile apartment and at the same time leave packages with their garbage on the ground floor of the entrance. And do not feel any internal dissonance: the entrance, unlike their own apartment, they do not feel "their" space. As well as people who admire their waste, they do not feel "their" neighbors. As a rule, nothing becomes a zone of personal responsibility, to which a person has not made at least some effort or labor in one form or another. If you have "state" light bulbs in your doorway, then you will most likely experience only some general dissatisfaction. But if soprut light bulbs, which you personally threw off with your neighbors, and then screwed - another thing. Righteous anger can bring you right up to the police. Because of the same, in fact, light bulbs. Personal responsibility is rather successfully inculcated through personal participation. Places that are the area of personal responsibility of a large percentage of their users, as a rule, look better, feel more comfortable and are used more carefully.
In principle, people who are installing tire swans and other small forms at their entrances demonstrate precisely the exit of a personal zone of responsibility for the doors of their apartments. But here lies one curious moment. When such a “way out” is observed in a large number of residents, then everything is usually normal. But if only one, then the "sole activist" appears. And this is not always great, as I mentioned above. The presence of such an “activist” creates the rest of the inhabitants a great temptation to shift the responsibility on him. And one in the field, as you know, is not a warrior. Some problems cannot be effectively resolved even by titan activists. In addition, in such cases, sole decisions will prevail. And this is fraught, since next to a very active life position quite often frank tyranny can go. Imagine that such an activist lives with you in the house. Who set the purple gnomes in front of the porch, yells heart-rendingly at everyone who walks on the lawns (lawns - they are not only and not always for beauty, if that) and smears the backs of benches with a solid so that they do not sit on these backs. Good intentions, but poor execution. As a result, they spit on the work of such an activist. In the literal and figurative sense. The activist is offended, which, in general, can be understood. And everyone laughs at him or quietly hates him. The result is a social conflict between the "benefactor" and the "ungrateful." Is that bad. Conclusion: who walks on lawns (lawns - they are not only and not always for beauty, if that) and smears the backs of benches with a solid so that they do not sit on these backs. Good intentions, but poor execution. As a result, they spit on the work of such an activist. In the literal and figurative sense. The activist is offended, which, in general, can be understood. And everyone laughs at him or quietly hates him. The result is a social conflict between the "benefactor" and the "ungrateful." Is that bad. Conclusion: who walks on lawns (lawns - they are not only and not always for beauty, if that) and smears the backs of benches with a solid so that they do not sit on these backs. Good intentions, but poor execution. As a result, they spit on the work of such an activist. In the literal and figurative sense. The activist is offended, which, in general, can be understood. And everyone laughs at him or quietly hates him. The result is a social conflict between the "benefactor" and the "ungrateful." Is that bad. Conclusion:activists' energy should be controlled by other users of the space of its activity . Otherwise - purple gnomes, corpses of soft toys on trees and other zombie horror.
Then I went to communication. Doing something alone is often not the best solution. Need to unite. Including to increase the comfort of the general environment. This has another rather interesting consequence. A comfortable environment depends not only on inanimate objects. It also depends on people. Living among gloomy and gloomy strangers - for most people this is a decrease in comfort. And no electric buses will help here. Of course, the environment affects people. But not only. Residents of large cities often do not know their neighbors. And for years they enter the elevator to a stranger. Solving common problems is a good way to at least get to know your neighbors a bit.
But it was all lyrics and theorizing. Now I will show you some real data. They will lead me to a conclusion and allow me to finish with a protracted part about the direct impact of residents on their environment.
According to the spoiler - photos of two porches in the same house . Tell me, which would you like to live in?
Entrance No. 1:
Entrance No. 2: The
photographs were taken by the author using one telephone and with a difference of several minutes. Entrance numbers are conditional
Entrance No. 2: The
photographs were taken by the author using one telephone and with a difference of several minutes. Entrance numbers are conditional
If in No. 1, then forgive me for taking so much of your time. Well, for the rest I’ll say that the repair of the entrance No. 2, as far as I know, for about 15 years, was done by the residents. And nobody, mind you, did not break anything and did not paint. The social composition and average income level (according to my data) is approximately the same. In No. 2, you immediately find yourself in a comfortable zone: clean, light, cameras, concierge (who sits not in the box with the window, but behind the counter, as at the reception. And which, by the way, serves as an additional transmitter of information between residents). All other entrances in the house, as far as I know, are similar to No. 1.
Why didn't the residents of the other entrances create a more comfortable environment than the one they have? Although, judging by one of the entrances, was this possible? My theory is this: it is a matter of will, communication, experience, and personal participation. When the sum of these indicators for a certain group of people reaches a certain threshold, then this group begins to try to change not only the personal, but also the environment that unites them. And can do it successfully.
I’ll try to explain my idea on the example of improvement of the entrance. So:
- The will . This is a strong desire of residents to improve their porch. Plus, the desire and the opportunity to make this (at least minimal) own efforts.
- Communication . This is an opportunity to attract other residents of the entrance to the discussion and solution of the problem.
- Experience . It, conditionally, can be divided into two components. Firstly, it is the realization of the fact that the staircase can be made much better. For example, you came to visit at number 2 and - op! - now you already have the knowledge that the staircase in a very ordinary house can be like that. The first component is received. The second component is the practical knowledge that is necessary to implement the solution: which tile will be best laid on the floor, whom to entrust it with, how to coordinate everything, etc.
- Personal involvement . This means that each participant in the solution will clearly spend some resource: time, material resources, etc.
From my point of view, all these four parameters can partially compensate each other. For example, a lack of experience can be compensated by a large will (the desire to find a solution). However, it seems to me that the complete absence of one of the components practically negates the possibility of a positive outcome. It seems that in the movie “The Fool” there was a scene where hooligans break a bench that the protagonist’s father did before the porch. He did it himself, without the participation of other residents. Those. only his own personal participation was used and the communication and personal participation of neighbors were completely excluded. It seems to me that if the shop were designed and discussed as a whole porch, and the boards were bought by a bucket, then the hooligans would have been waiting for an impressive mass lesson of good manners. And so an excellent but sad film came out.
So, with the direct participation of residents in creating a comfortable environment, I finished. Let's move on to the second part, which is about the influence on the comfort of the environment from managers. It should be shorter.
A significant part of what affects the comfort of the environment is occupied by special people - managers. As a rule, they are in charge of the management of state property at various levels, activities that require special qualifications and the attraction of significant forces and means, etc. In short, all the issues that directly deal with residents are impractical. This includes law enforcement, large-scale infrastructure work, development of urban policies, etc. etc. In principle, managers are people who are endowed by society with the right to carry out activities for the good and at the expense of society. Those. In this case, residents do not directly influence the comfort of the environment, but through their representatives. But in this system, something often does not go exactly as many would like.
Imagine that you are doing repairs in the apartment. You paid the money. But the one who makes repairs to you, in fact, is not responsible to you for the quality of work. Agree that the likelihood of getting a “repair" instead of a repair is increasing. And seriously. The lack of actual control by the consumer makes the soil favorable for such abominations as corruption, misallocation of funds, imitation of activity, etc. At the same time, the activities of ineffective managers can fully satisfy the conditions and performance metrics that are assigned to them “from above”. For example, they allocated a district budget to improve the urban environment. Bad shops were bought on it and a certain number of seedlings were stuck in the ground, which would die in a year. Formally, the task has been completed, the budget has been “mastered”, the people are silent (that is, satisfied). Managers are waiting for rewards, residents - the lack of real improvement. Hoping for some kind of close control "from above" in most cases is rather optimistic: the numbers are correct, there are no complaints - then everything is fine. There is no system of “control from below” - we begin to learn the words “quickie,” “idiocy,” “sinecure,” etc.
Of course, in any democratic state there are control mechanisms “from below”. That's just use them is not very convenient. In order to prevent their manipulation (and possible blocking the activities of managers), these mechanisms are formalized and bureaucratized. Thus, the bureaucratic system perceives silence as a sign of undoubted consent and contentment. And this is justified: the head of the district will not run after each resident with the question "how do you like new shops?" It will take him too much time, which is clearly irrational. Speaking out loud to the bureaucratic system is the complete equivalent of silence. Because she waits correctly and according to the law for a formalized reaction directed to the right instance with all the formalities. And this is a significant obstacle for most residents: the proper execution of their legitimate discontent requires too much effort. As a result, the system does not receive the feedback necessary for its proper functioning. She certainly needs help. Another feature of the bureaucratic system is its ability to filter and smooth out values that fall out of the general mass. For example, there is a certain project in an area with a population of 80,000. Against him comes 100 correctly executed signatures, requests, protests. From the point of view of the bureaucratic system, it has 100 opponents of the project and 79,900 silent supporters. As a result, the opinions of this hundreds are likely to be ignored. This is also quite understandable and logical - acting in the interests of the minority is rather strange. Spending time on crazy people (and such people are always and everywhere) is completely impractical.
Of course, the bureaucratic system in a democratic state periodically begins to attempt to increase its own effectiveness. She guesses that not everyone is happy with the effectiveness of interacting with her. So there are all sorts of tools for control and quick access. For example, the so-called "Electronic receptions" and projects like an "active citizen." These are, without a doubt, excellent systems. But their effectiveness is initially largely determined by the fact that they are created, implemented and controlled by the very authorities whose control over their actions they should contribute. Feel a catch? It seems to me that control systems should be as independent as possible from what they control . Including control systems "from below."
Undoubtedly, there will be enough people who will argue that “it is important how they count” and “everything is useless, even if you write all complaints, there will be nothing”. There is a certain reason for this. But, according to my personal observations, many of these people have never even tried. Or failed to achieve the necessary mass. If the district police officer does not come to you, then your personal complaint may be ignored. Forty personal complaints from different people addressed to the busy head of the negligent district police officer are likely to cause a different reaction. But the boss also has a boss. Even more busy person. Moreover, some regulatory authorities are required togive a personal autographed answer. The need to put a lot of murals under the standard answer can be quite challenging. In addition, bureaucratic systems are clumsy by definition. Imagine that you have a poor management company that poorly serves your home and yard. And a dozen or two houses next door. Once you find the right way to influence it, the same lever will appear in all your neighbors. Only using it will be much easier: it’s always easier to follow the paved path.
Of course, this is again theorizing. And real examples here are somewhat more difficult. But I'll try. These examples are related to my personal experience, which is not very great.
The first example. In Moscow, approximately in the region of 2008, the so-called so-called public transport (buses and trolleybuses) appeared. "Validators". This is a turnstile that allows you to pass only if a ticket has been attached to the reader. These devices were installed only near the front door and passengers were boarded exclusively through it. The remaining doors were used only for the exit of passengers. The result was that buses and trolleybuses stood at stops for several minutes, waiting for all passengers to enter through one door and pass the turnstile. Passage with prams, etc. became sharply difficult. Transport began to walk more slowly, people drove longer to work, etc. The efficiency of the public transport system has decreased. Of course, this decision seemed doubtful to many. Of course some residents wrote official appeals. But nothing has changed for about 10 years. Today, entrance is carried out at all doors and without turnstiles, payment is made by attaching a ticket to the reader, controllers work on the routes, and they fine for ticket-free travel. Transport goes faster, using it has become much more convenient. But this logical correction took, I repeat, about 10 years. At the same time, such a solution was proposed throughout all these years, but mainly in person. Single appeals did not help. who are fined for stowaways. Transport goes faster, using it has become much more convenient. But this logical correction took, I repeat, about 10 years. At the same time, such a solution was proposed throughout all these years, but mainly in person. Single appeals did not help. who are fined for stowaways. Transport goes faster, using it has become much more convenient. But this logical correction took, I repeat, about 10 years. At the same time, such a solution was proposed throughout all these years, but mainly in person. Single appeals did not help.
An example of the second. There is a big street in Moscow - Leninsky Prospekt. About five years ago, if my memory serves me, the city decided to reconstruct it. The project is very large-scale, expensive and ambitious. Managers quite clearly showed their interest in its implementation. But, for various reasons, the project was not liked by many residents of the surrounding areas. After heated public hearings (with an unexpectedly high turnout of local residents), the project was postponed. So far, Leninsky Prospekt remains close to its original form. The “do it together” approach is quite capable of working.
Well, suppose you took my word for it that the bureaucratic system is our great but underrated friend. And that it is quite capable of working in the interests of residents and to increase the comfort of their living environment. But why then does it not work at full strength?
My answer is because residents do not have an effective and easy way to carry out public communication and coordination, including for the purpose of interacting with the bureaucratic system.
And only here we come to the question, which, I suspect, is asked by those few who have read up to this point:
And what does IT have to do with it?
In my opinion - very much to do with it. Figuratively speaking, we presented the world with systems of ultra-fast distribution of photographs of cats, we screw on even more sophisticated systems, teach robots how to blow, intelligently talk about the ethical side of AI and employ 250 developers in order to better prepare and deliver pizza faster. All this, without a doubt, is cool. But, from my point of view, we never gave people a tool that would allow them to participate more actively and effectively in public life at all its levels.
And before stale tomatoes fly at me for an "article not for Habr", I would like to explain my position on this issue. First, on Habré there are enough articles from a series "how to move to work in another country". According to my subjective feelings (I did not check them), this kind of article is becoming more likely. Which in itself does not seem to me to be the best signal. And in these articles, as a rule, the emphasis is more on the bureaucratic and social aspects of the move than on any specific technologies. Therefore, it does not seem to me particularly shameful to express an opinion on issues related to the bureaucratic and social systems of one’s own country. Secondly, I personally think that a tool that is quite complicated in designing, implementing and implementing can be expected more from the IT community than, say, from economists or advertisers.
Below I will focus more on issues of interaction between the population (residents) and the bureaucratic system (managers). Because it is precisely this sphere that seems to me both very important and very poorly developed, having many regrettable shortcomings. The interaction of the population among themselves outside the bureaucratic system is undoubtedly important and necessary, but I, for the most part, will leave it outside the brackets.
In my reasoning, I proceed from the conviction that the absence of real feedback between society and the bureaucratic system leads, at least, to a slower development of society than this, in principle, is possible. Take for example a flock. It is run solely in the interests of the shepherd, and not in the interests of the sheep. And the sheep can only hope that they only need wool, and not fresh kebab. They have no influence on the interests and actions of the shepherd. A manager who has not used public transport for ten years is unlikely to guess by himself that something is wrong with this transport and that it can (and should) be done better. The separation of managers from the real needs of those whose lives are directly affected by their decisions (due to the lack of effective feedback) seems a rather obvious evil.
In addition, I am convinced that IT, like many other industries, is interested in developing a healthy society. I think that few people would like to live and work in a country where the population is illiterate, and the management of shared resources is irrational and outdated. With all the consequences. In countries with this situation, IT has few prospects. In fact, society is the branch on which we sit. And the fact that we do not saw it ourselves does not mean that no one is sawing it. Or that it does not rot on its own. You can argue as much as you like about responsibility to society, but, in my opinion, the dependence of IT on its state is undeniable. And, accordingly, I would consider attempts to somehow influence the situation on the part of IT as logical actions in our own interests.
And my other conviction is that the more actively the society and its individual members take part in public, social and state life, the faster and better this society will develop. The more often people participate in collective decision-making and the faster they see the result, the more they realize the importance of their own voice, the more difficult it is to convince them that nothing, in general, depends on them. It is also a great way to familiarize yourself with the basic principles, forks, and side effects of the democratic process. Participation in discussions of problems of public importance contributes to a more rapid receipt of information about different points of view and the arguments both “for” and “against” them, the formation of a more or less justified position, and a departure from exclusively emotional and intuitive judgments. From my point of view, participation in such processes makes it more difficult to use exclusively populist or demagogic techniques and intimidation tactics. In addition, participation in discussions, adoption and implementation of decisions allows, in my opinion, to distinguish among the participants in this process the most talented, competent and interested in the development of the discussed sphere of people. And find them the right application.
I will return to my thesis that society does not have an effective tool for influencing the bureaucratic system, as well as a sufficiently effective tool for discussing socially significant issues, making decisions on them and implementing these decisions. The implementation problem is especially acute. Perhaps you are objecting to me now: “what about change.org, social networks and messengers with encryption?”. Based on my modest experience and some logical constructions, I believe that these (and similar) tools can be effective only to some extent and only in some cases. In other cases, the process often turns into hammering the screws into the nut. And some of these tools are generally of little use.
I'll start with change.org. To which I personally am extremely skeptical. In my opinion, this is one of the largest imitations of participation in public activities. Collected signatures have no legal force. From the point of view of state bodies, petitions on change.org are nothing. They are, at most, introductory in nature for those to whom they are addressed and can be completely ignored. And such a reaction can even be considered sufficiently substantiated. In addition, quite often there you can meet frankly populist petitions. Change.org itself does not provide for any effective petition discussion system. I suspect that if it is beautiful to “wrap up” a petition to ban the terrible substance “O-two” (contributes to fires, for example), then this petition will gain a lot of signatures. But its existence is change. org demonstrates a very interesting thing: petitions are signed even by those who prefer kebabs in the country to participate in public or civil life. Because itsimple . No complicated actions, but a sense of ownership appears. It seems to me that this shows that very many people, to one degree or another, are ready to take some part in public life. And the simpler it is, the more willing they will be to do it.
The situation with social networks is more difficult to explain. To begin with, it is they who are chosen by most of those who are trying to organize some kind of social activity. And this leads to a number of problems. Firstly, the most popular social networks have slightly different goals than organizing public communication and, especially, making and implementing decisions in this area. As a result, their use is often inconvenient and not very effective simply by design. I’ll try to illustrate: imagine that you decided to hold a discussion and vote on some issue. Here, on Habré, this is theoretically possible something like this: we publish a question, suggest comments, warn about the voting day, collect and analyze the comments received, supplement the article with a vote, and wait for the results. Those interested can bookmark the article to easily return to it at the voting stage. The mechanism is imperfect, but quite working. Now try to do something similar in one of the popular social networks. And then in the three main ones at the same time, because the coverage of one social network is usually not enough: someone uses only Facebook, someone only VKontakte, etc. (and someone, by the way, does not use them at all). You will greatly increase work. Moreover, not only due to the fact that it will be necessary to control several different sites, but also because of the structure and mechanics of interaction in social networks. They are usually designed to publish some pretty momentary information. In many of them, the time it takes to edit a post counts for hours, and returning to old posts is difficult or unusual for users. No one can guarantee you that the tools that are convenient for your activity will not be cut out or completely revised for the sake of the main goals of the development of a particular social network. There are a lot of similar problems related to usability, the logic of work and the goals of social networks. In order not to stretch the article, I propose just to take my word for it that, having plunged into this abyss, you (and your users) will most likely come up with a set of new intricate curses.
But the main, in my opinion, the problem with social networks lies in a slightly different plane. It lies in the great difficulty of moving from words (discussion, decision making) to the implementation of the decision. And the larger the problem, the more complicated it becomes. Imagine that you live in city N, in area X. The population of your area is 60,000. And then, one fine day, the city administration decides to implement a certain project, which involves cutting down green spaces, demolishing parks and, at the same time, building a dozen huge concrete boxes-humane. And all this is done for the sake of, say, the convenience of transit passengers who simply ride their cars through your area, without even stopping at it. Most likely, neither you nor your neighbors will like this project. Suppose you decide to fight to cancel this project. You have a public, which consists of all the residents of the district (in reality, this is unattainable). Using it as a means of informing and invoking the responsibility of fellow citizens, you provide an unprecedented turnout at a public hearing and a stunning advantage in the votes “against” the project. But this is not enough: after a public hearing, it is necessary to collect and send to the appropriate authority the correctly executed signatures against the project. Most likely, you will have relatively little time for this. For which you need to collect (in paper form) a lot (say, 25,000) of signatures. And in collecting these signatures, a public can provide you only with information support. The final result will depend mainly on how much effort those who are potentially willing to put their signature will have to spend. This can be represented as follows: which consists of all the inhabitants of the district (in reality this is unattainable). Using it as a means of informing and invoking the responsibility of fellow citizens, you provide an unprecedented turnout at a public hearing and a stunning advantage in the votes “against” the project. But this is not enough: after a public hearing, it is necessary to collect and send to the appropriate authority the correctly executed signatures against the project. Most likely, you will have relatively little time for this. For which you need to collect (in paper form) a lot (say, 25,000) of signatures. And in collecting these signatures, a public can provide you only with information support. The final result will depend mainly on how much effort those who are potentially willing to put their signature will have to spend. This can be represented as follows: which consists of all the inhabitants of the district (in reality this is unattainable). Using it as a means of informing and invoking the responsibility of fellow citizens, you provide an unprecedented turnout at a public hearing and a stunning advantage in the votes “against” the project. But this is not enough: after a public hearing, it is necessary to collect and send to the appropriate authority the correctly executed signatures against the project. Most likely, you will have relatively little time for this. For which you need to collect (in paper form) a lot (say, 25,000) of signatures. And in collecting these signatures, a public can provide you only with information support. The final result will depend mainly on how much effort those who are potentially willing to put their signature will have to spend. This can be represented as follows:
Laziness, the desire to shift responsibility and the hope of "maybe" oppose civil liability. If you in your public invite people to draw up an appeal on their own and ask them to send them to the right address on their own, then laziness and others like it will win: you will get a minimum of signatures. You will get the maximum if you bring the completed sheets (“just add a signature!”) To everyone personally, at a time convenient for him, and even pick them up. The second option will require incredible personal and organizational efforts from someone else. Someone will have to walk a lot, look for helpers, find out a convenient time for each resident of the district, etc. Of course, the second option is simply impossible. Therefore, as a rule, something average takes place: centralized listing and collection of subscription sheets, etc., is organized. Worst option by the way this is when it’s not going further than buzzing on the Internet: people feel that they don’t hear them, fall into apathy, begin to talk about the futility of expressing their own opinions. But back to our model situation. Imagine now that in your area X there is one entrance. Which residents have, for example, their own chat. Which they created to solve their "driveway" problems. And the residents of this entrance agree to act like this: Vasya, who still has a printer, prints out ready-made application forms for all neighbors and puts them in mailboxes. Vasya’s neighbors at the porch get them on the way home from work, sign them and throw them in Petya’s box. Which still works at home and can allocate half an hour to take all the collected signatures to, for example, the community council of the district. Where they will be counted, photographed and centrally sent where necessary. A minimum of personal effort with great efficiency. If this approach were extrapolated to all the entrances of area X, then this would allow to achieve almost the maximum result. At a lower cost of personal effort than with the use of "average" options. Of course, all this is a model. In the real sublunary world, everything can be somewhat different: unknown attackers break into mailboxes, a negligent cleaning lady selectively breaks ads at the entrance, etc. But this model allows us to show two not quite obvious problems of social networks as a tool for participation in real public life. Firstly, they themselves do not greatly simplify the transition from words to deeds. Secondly, pay attention that the appearance of an “effective drive-in chat” is not connected in any way with the fact of the existence of the public of district X. The connection between them is random, there is no such tool in other entrances. As a result, the real possibility of breaking a big problem into smaller ones and delegating their implementation almost disappears. In addition, the fact that problems can be differentlevel. A neighbor who does not take out the trash is a problem of the entrance level, which is pointless to solve through the public of the whole district. It is precisely for the joint solution of such problems that a “driveway chat” may appear. The problem of urban transport is already the level of the city, the district public is already not enough for these purposes. And there can be quite a lot of such levels: entrance, house, district, district, city, region, country. Social networks do not provide for the construction of such a hierarchical system. You can, of course, create a series of publics, but this is not even hammering the screws into the nut. This is an inconvenient, confusing user and non-viable system. Another point - social networks, as a rule, do not prohibit creating an arbitrary number of publics of one orientation. As a result, for one reason or another,
I tried to show that, in my opinion, there is no suitable tool for the effective and simple participation of the population in public life. I decided to minimize the number of examples from real practice (both my own and someone else's) of using social networks and other tools for such purposes so as not to inflate the volume of the article. In any case, most attempts at some kind of social activity happen precisely on social networks, which, in my opinion, proves the lack of alternatives to them from the point of view of ordinary Internet users. I admit some likelihood that I may simply not be aware of existing suitable solutions. I note that when I talk about the "tool", I do not mean exclusively a certain site / service / application / social. network. I mean a fairly comprehensive solution, which also includes a mechanism for exchanging and preserving specific experiences (we at least have Stack Overflow, for example), a variety of guides, recommendations, and guides: from “how to organize productive communication with neighbors” and to “what to do if on the spot They decided to build a skyscraper in your park. ” Those. everything that will allow to make the correct and lawful participation of people in public life as easy as possible and effective for them.
Of course, I have some vision of the basic principles on which the solution should be built: maximum simplicity for the end user, the hierarchy that was originally provided, which will address problems to the circle of users who are directly related to them, the presence of developed mechanisms for accumulating and transferring experience, simplification of task breaking and delegation, etc. But behind the general principles lies a mass of very specific problems that require serious reflection. For example, the mechanics of the “tool” should contribute to a meaningful discussion, and not to comments like “I'm your Virtel cap!” Or “LOL !!!”, which are so characteristic of social networks. The general principles of such mechanics are understandable (the same karma and badges on Habré, for example), but they certainly need to be adapted to suit the audience. And how to do this optimally is a rather complicated issue that requires, as it seems to me, quite serious reflection and discussion. And there are still a lot of similar questions.
I admit that the design and technical implementation of such a project is affordable even for a team of enthusiasts. But the implementation phase seems to me to require more significant resources. It seems too optimistic to count on the explosive growth in popularity and use of a non-entertainment project without serious, for example, information support. You can create, but how to convince people to use it is another very big question.
I hope I didn’t tire you too much and managed to convey the main idea. Personally, I believe in consistent and phased development, in enthusiasm, indifference, activity and a desire for a better life in people. It is possible that they can (and still not too late) help in implementing all this.
For inaccurate wording and lack of conciseness, please forgive.
Here is a question that I would like to receive an answer from you:
Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.
Do you think that the availability of a convenient specialized tool for public participation (and the widespread use of this tool) could lead to noticeable improvements in the life of this population?
- 71.8% Yes 235
- 22.6% No 74
- 5.5% Such a tool already exists (please write to me about it in the PM) 18