Trust and reputation systems: redistributing power and influence

People use social networking tools to figure out who they can trust and rely on for decision making. By the end of this decade, power and influence will shift largely to those people with the best reputations and trust networks, from people with money and nominal power. That is, peer networks will confer legitimacy on people emerging from the grassroots.

This shift is already happening, gradually creating a new power and influence equilibrium with new checks and balances. It will seem dramatic when its tipping point occurs, even though we're living through it now.

Everyone gets a chance to participate in large or small ways, giving a voice to what we once called "the silent majority."

(Okay, I started with the bottom line. The following is a relatively brief summary of how I got there, deserving much longer treatment from really smart people.)

When we need help with decision making, we get recommendations from people we trust, that trust built on some combination of personal experience and reputation. That's the way humans work, nothing new about that. We talk about reputation being one's greatest asset.

Reputation is contextual, that is, you might trust someone when it comes to dry cleaners but not politic. However, I'm going to simplify this thing by avoiding the issue, right now. (Yes, might be short-sighted on my part.) I'll also defer a prerequisite, the need for persistent and verifiable identity, the need to prove you are who you say you are.

In real life, personal networks are pretty small, maybe in the hundreds. Mass media plays a role in shaping reputation for a small number of people, including celebrities and politicians. A very small number of people have influence in this environment.

Internet culture and technology changes this dramatically:

• people tend to work with each other
• people are normally trustworthy
• despite their large media footprint, there aren't many bad guys out there
• message spreads quickly
• message is persistent, it's there forever
• connectivity is increasingly pervasive
• people are finding that reputation and recommendation systems can be used to drive a lot of profit.

Okay, so we want to be able to see who we might be able to trust, maybe by seeing some explicit measurement, or maybe something implicit, like seeing their history, and who trusts them.

We already see various forms of reputation and recommendation systems evolve, often with mixtures of pre-selected experts or professionals. Amazon and Consumer Reports Online do a good job of this. (Disclaimer: I'm on the board of Consumers, since their record for integrity is close to perfect.)

Wikipedia does a very good job of this, mostly by having lots of people keep an eye on articles, particularly the more controversial ones. There are ongoing issues, being addressed in good conscience as people develop new methods to address information quality and reliability.

We also see reputation and influence created by persistent works, reflected in social networking sites including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google Social. Such systems show history and context, which play into trust, and display connections to other people. Those are not trust relationships normally, they're "weak ties" which also play into trustworthiness.

Cory Doctorow (or here) postulates kind of a trustworthiness currency called "whuffie". You trust someone, maybe want to reward them for something, you give them points. Turns out that there's an experimental repository of whuffie, thewhuffiebank.org. While this sounds facetious, it's a very simple solution to the complex problem of tracking trust.

The most prominent experiment in directly measuring trust is Unvarnished, very recently launched in beta form. You rate what trust you have in specific individuals, and they might rate you. Unvarnished is pretty controversial, and is already attracting a lot of legal speculation. They're trying to address all the problems related to the trustworthiness of the information they receive, and if so, might become very successful.

The last raises an issue all such systems have; they might be very easy to game. Any such system is vulnerable to disinformation attacks, wherein smart enough people can figure out how to fake good or bad ratings. There are a number of very successful groups who are really good at such disinformation in conventional media. Often they're called "front groups", "influence peddlers" or "astroturfers." One good watchdog over such groups is the Center for Media and Democracy.

One metric of trust is transitive, that is, the trustworthiness of the people who trust someone. If person A trusts you, and person B trusts A, then that might affect how one measures your trustworthiness. However, that gets real complicated when that web of trust involves seven billion people, or even a few thousand. It's a research problem.

How do we trust the custodians of trustworthiness? We need to have some confidence that they're not fiddling the ratings, that they're reasonably secure. After all, trust and reputation are really valuable assets.

I think the solution lies in a network of trust and reputation systems. We're seeing the evolution of a number of different ways of measuring trust, which reflects a human reality; different people think of trust in different ways.

Also, the repositories of trust information are the banks in which we store this big asset. Like any banks, having a lot of this kind of currency confers a lot of power in them. Having some competition provides some checks and balances.

We need to be able to move around the currency of trust, whatever that turns out to be, like we move money from one bank to another. That suggests the need for interchange standards, and ethical standards that require the release of that information when requested. Perhaps there's a need for new law in this area.

Restating the bottom line: we are already seeing a shift in power and influence, a big wave whose significance we'll see by the end of this decade. Right now, it's like the moment before a tsunami, where the water is drawn away from the shore, when it's time to get ahead of that curve.

Comments

[Nike Dunks]

Mathematics is a wonderful course! It all the time full of mystery! Full of people tried their best to force it lifted the veil just to

[RobbieGallegos33]

Different people all over the world receive the credit loans from different banks, because this is comfortable and fast.

[buy viagra]

There have been studies and some attempt to create tsunami waves as a weapon. In World War II, the army in New Zealand trialled explosives in the area of today's Shakespear Regional Park to create small tsunamis, an attempt which failed.

[discount coach]

Everybody’s got something they had to leave behind One regret from yesterday that just seems to grow with time. There’s no use looking back or wondering How it could be now or might have been.

[AlexPitson]

Trust is a funny thing.Trust is a funny thing.One of the most powerful ways to breach trust is to behave inconsistently with promises or verbalisations. There are thousands of websites in the chain, all doing the same thing website links chain.People trust people who do what they say they will do or who sell products which do what they claim to do. http://www.safeshops.org

[cheap computer]

I really like reading your thoughts. I think your point is true that when you distribute power and influence it will help your business to achieve highest level of success.
For best used laptops log on to http://www.electrocomputerwarehouse.com

[Joan Boyd]

Craig,

Here’s my belated response. You’ve raised challenging concepts about trust, power and influence. Let me play devil’s advocate.

PEOPLE TEND TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER

True, but the contingencies are very numerous: the stakes or self-interest, balance of power, personalities, gender . . .

PEOPLE ARE NORMALLY TRUSTWORTHY

True, but the exceptions are endless.

For example, Roosevelt was revered by my family and the majority of people; he did great things for the country. But now we understand that he was preparing our country for WWII long before the Pearl Harbor attack which wasn’t such a surprise as claimed. FDR ran for a fourth term and won even though he was too ill to hold office. And all those around him knew that. No one challenged him.

Robert McNamara was known as a whiz kid, and we all thought the DoD was in good hands. But he made bad decisions. He was the wrong man at the wrong time for the wrong job, i.e., wrong context.

Political correctness and group think interfere with judgment and trustworthiness.

What about the Polish airline crash in Russia.? One would presume that the pilot of the plane was trustworthy given his extraordinary responsibility. Did some one else command him to land? Was this an issue of balance of power? Personality? Time frame? Did others decline to speak up?

DESPITE THEIR LARGE MEDIA FOOTPRINT, THERE AREN'T MANY BAD PEOPLE.

In the enormous military-corporate-congressional-academic complex, are there any bad guys? In the Wall Street scandal? How did the rich/poor divide become so large? Are politicians who make decisions/vote for the purpose of campaign contributions and votes bad? How about people who cheat on taxes? Students who cheat? Bullies in school? Employees who steal from the office?

Re the military-industrial complex, there are two changes being discussed with some seriousness:

1) There is intent to decrease the DoD’s annual budget and increase the State Department’s budget which will expand the Agency for International Development. This will help reduce the DoD’s influence, hopefully.
2) Also, there is intent to increase the number and percentage of women of all ranks in the military. Women are less likely to go to war.

CONNECTIVITY IS INCREASINGLY PERVASIVE

This has got to be good, but I am waiting to see more solid evidence of benefits.

PEOPLE ARE FINDING THAT REPUTATION AND RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS CAN BE USED TO DRIVE A LOT OF PROFIT

Does Goldman Sachs stand as an example? Just kidding!

[Craig Newmark]

Masanori, thanks! and Ive check the Google translation of your paper, and it looks good to me, very appreciated! (I only know a few words of Japanese, most of which are names of fish.)

However, looks like Teppingupointo is tipping point.

Thanks very much, appreciated!

Craig

[Masanori Fujimura]

I impressed very much with your insights and critical eyes to Trust and reputation systems in peer networks.

I translated the blog into Japanese, today. I would like to share this japanese edition with my folks on Twitter and other japanese who are interested in social media.

Please let me allow to up the japanese version of your blog on my site,
http://bugsworks.blogspot.com/2010/04/craig-newmark.html

Please also let me know it, if you don't want it. I will remove the page at once.

[jamie]

Hi, Craig. You should check out Monkeysphere:

http://web.monkeysphere.info/

We're using OpenPGP and the OpenPGP Web of Trust as a distributed trust network for host authentication.