Cited by 5Social and Economic SolidaritySocial Sciences and GovernanceOpen Source Software Innovations

Cautious hope: prospects and perils of communitarian governance in a Web3 environment

Open access
Ettlinger, Nancy·2024·Digital Geography and Society

Abstract

In the context of extreme societal polarization, activists have mobilized to protest injustices and claim their rights, yet such efforts often fall short of goals because demands normally are directed to government or firms that offer superficial responses. Communitarianism, which broadly strives for autonomy from established institutions, promises the development of self-provisioning communities based on cooperative networks and participatory, democratic governance that prioritizes use over exchange value and redistribution over profitable activity for individuals. The emergence of Web3 and blockchain technology has ushered in new affordances such as scaling a communitarian enterprise and exchange of value independent of banks or other institutions. Whereas market-based organizations use Web 3 affordances for accounting purposes for profit, communitarian organizations aim to link accounting with designs to inject capital into a commons to support self-governing communities in community-based peer production (CBPP). To exemplify the broad range of approaches to the multifaceted goals of CBPP, I focus on FairCoop and Sensorica. Despite considerable differences, these organizations nonetheless share problems and generally are illustrative of longstanding challenges to communitarian enterprises – digitalized and non-digitalized alike. Perennial problems such as the fraught capitalist/postcapitalist relation, self-interest, uneven power relations, lack of diversity, and the challenge of responding adequately to societal needs combine with effects of automated governance and associated effects of technocracy that can dissolve founding values to threaten the integrity of a communitarian collective. CBPP as well as its non-digitalized counterparts are important contributions to humanity, but goals and actual practices can diverge. CBPP requires vigilant designs that complement rather than replace human decision making with algorithmic governance and pay attention to reflexivity and positionality, continualre-design to engage unanticipated problems, and distance actually existing projects from discourses that reify patterns such as decentralization with the consequence of missing crucial contextual knowledges.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diggeo.2024.100080

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ettlinger, N.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ettlinger, Nancy
Venue
Digital Geography and Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
6
Pages
100080
ISSN
2666-3783 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391664477
Cited by
5
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Geography and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Economic Solidarity
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Social Sciences and Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
communitarianism, Web3, blockchain, participatory governance, commons, algorithmic governance, technocracy, post-capitalism, self-government, reflexivity, positionality, decentralization, social polarization, cooperative networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review