Off the Cuff 3: Neutrality and Permission

Neutrality can be a confusing notion. It implies some sort of a-political position, yet neutrality is in itself a political position. But what it means, or how neutrality expresses itself is in a lack of bias or preference; it is the act of non-decision where we see neutrality. As a result, some conflation can occur, because this ‘non-decision’ can be the result of two things: Either being in the position to decide, but choosing not to, what we can perhaps call ‘active neutrality’. Or, the sheer inability to express and actuate preference, where we could call that ‘passive neutrality’.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, aka ICANN, is an actively (for the most part) neutral institution. It has all the power and control to express its preferences, and censor basically all the relevant and most actively used parts of the world wide web. But it doesn’t (for the most part), because we recognize the value of this neutral stance. The only reason they are actively instead of passively neutral, is due to technical reasons; we simply don’t know of any workable way to remove the controlling body from the system, and we would if we could. Instead we encapsulated it in all kinds of power obscuring institutions and structures to mitigate the issue.

The reason the controlling body has to exist, is because the objective is a ‘global state’ (global as it is understood in programming, meaning as much as ‘overarching’). The point is that google.com, means/refers to the same thing wherever you are. The added value of some simple human readable and memorable address ‘google.com’ falls apart the moment it becomes inconsistent. The only way to ensure this, is to put a single entity in charge. We employ these ‘global states’ in all kinds of places in society, often with geographical boundaries we call ‘jurisdictions’, but at the very least you know where those lines are drawn and can therefor know what to expect.

There is one exception to this ‘rule’ that ‘global state’ requires a single entity to be in charge: Bitcoin. It is the whole crux of the system; on the one hand we require ‘global state’ in order to have consistent accounting, but on the other hand we did not want anyone to be in charge. The goal of Bitcoin was neutrality, and it found it by capturing ‘passive’ variant by making the system ‘permissionless’. Now it is crucial to understand that non of Bitcoins attributes are intrinsic, but instead are emergent and the result of human action. Also, Bitcoins ‘global state’ is stupendously expensive and does not scale. The fact that those things were not properly understood is what lead to the BlOcKcHaIn hype, believing this passively neutral global state could be implemented outside the realms of money. But this piece is not about Bitcoin, or blockchains for that matter.

The reason I talk about them, is to point out that this passive neutrality is an emergent property not actually found within the system at all. You as user still rely on a third party in what we call miners, and those miners are free to be as biased and non-neutral as they want; in fact we sort of rely on them to be biased towards money. You don’t get your transaction confirmed because a miner likes you, but because you sufficiently bribed him to do so. And Bitcoin’s censorship resistance relies on the hope that such bribes will at least appeal to some miner out there. Bitcoin’s neutrality is the result of there ultimately not being any one particular actor with the ability actuate its preference over time, regardless of the fact that they are able to do so in moments of time.

Nostr does something similar, just without the whole global state thing. It is not neutral because of the good graces of some overlord, it actually recognizes the foolishness of such an effort and lets anyone be as biased an non-neutral as they want, with one simple exception. The only expectation of neutrality is with clients that they adhere to the protocol and actually let users connect to whatever relay they want and produce events that other clients are capable of interpreting, i.e. that they be interoperable. But hopefully because the system is permissionless, some people decide to make such clients, and users decide to use them, instead of willfully locking themselves up. It has to be remarked that humanity does not have the greatest track-record in this regard, but the incentives behind interoperability gives us a fighting chance at least.

Nostr’s neutrality is an emergent property that is the result of human action; it relies on people setting up relays, and people making decisions on what relays they use. The type of neutrality is of the passive kind. The protocol does not provide a public space as such, it just allows you to navigate a potentially vast amount of private spaces; the commons is the connective tissue, and it is this connective tissue that is ‘neutral’. What it boils down to, is that you don’t have to ask permission to ask whomever you want to ask for permission. And in the most desperate moment, you can always resort to asking yourself for permission; I am sure you will comply with such a request.