Part of the MFA Interaction Design Weekly Thesis Blog series - 14 of 64

At a recent party a SVA faculty, Richard Tyson, asked me, “What is the most consequential design of the 21st century?”

Being that I was at a party, I misheard the question as “of the 20th century.”  My kneejerk answer was, “The decentralized nature of the internet.”

It was a fun question, not because there is a “correct” answer, but that it gets at how I thought about the world. Richard summarized it as a question that simultaneously reveals what one thinks “design” means, and “consequence” means.

Design and Consequence

After the party I reflected upon why I gave that answer. It’s hard to question how consequential the internet is, but is it really about the decentralized nature of it? The decentralized nature of the internet was in part spurred by the Cold War determination to make communication robust, so that there are no central points of failure, and that new parts of the network can come online without central permission.

The “no permissions required” part is what I think is the most interesting design choice, and potentially most consequential. In principle, the internet could have been designed with a strong central authority, and more gate keeping. (Indeed, that’s what most media companies wishes it had been, and are fighting to impose now.) It’s decentralized nature meant that new ideas could be tested by anyone, and I believe that has far reaching consequences.

Designing an Open Possibility Space

From a technical start point, “no permissions required” allowed the internet to be a platform with a wide, accessible possibility space, where experiments in informational, communicative and commercial technology permutate and evolve. Why is permission-less experimentation so important? Imagine if you needed to submit a proposal to get a permit for a new website, do you think Twitter would have ever happened? What kind of bureaucrat would have the foresight to allow such an experiment?

Consequences of “No Permissions Required”

Instead of a bureaucrat deciding the fate of a nascent experiment, the “no permissions required” internet allows experiments to begin and permutate freely. The fate of these experiments is determined by whether people on the internet cared. Bringing together a freedom to experiment, and selection pressure in getting people to care, the internet became (kind of) a space for natural selection. It’s the survival of the most interesting.

The consequence of “decentralization” has yet to fully manifest itself. Today, only a relatively small group of privileged, Western-educated elites embraces this “no permissions required” reality of the internet. I wonder what the world will look like when this understanding tips over into the mainstream.

Postscript

It’s interesting to ponder what my answer says about me. Three lines of criticism emerges.

One, I am too web centric. If I want to look at scale of impact, one might argue the design of Walmart’s global supply chain is equally consequential, if not more consequential for the lives of people (workers, consumers) around the world.

Two, I am essentially conflating consequence with scale. Why shouldn’t a small, profound design that changes lives for a small group of people be consequential?

Three, I am taking a overly broad view of design. Is a bunch of computer scientist coming up with communication protocols and network topologies really design?

To which I would concede points two. Point one and three, however, I would probably argue with you over drinks.