This is a page that discusses the value of having all communications publicly -- public discussions vs. private discussions.

Background

We have a long tradition of private discussions in both business and government, for many reasons, including the simple fact that making all discussions public was pretty much technically impossible -- you couldn't make every phone call, every fax, every meeting public, in the days before the Internet.

Download Game Android
Android Market Indonesia
Seribu Pernak Pernik Ponsel Android
Status Lucu
Download Avira Terbaru 2012

But it goes beyond that. Businesses conduct private discussions for reasons of competition: if their competitors knew all the secrets of their products, they'd have no competitive advantage. If their competitors knew what moves they were going to make, they'd lose that advantage as well.

And beyond that: corporations don't want the public to know their dirty laundry. Private discussions mean businesses can do things the public wouldn't like -- racial and sexual discrimination, harrassment, unethical treatment of workers, pollution, insider trading, monopolistic practices, cockroaches in kitchens and factories, etc. This isn't stuff businesses want public.

In government, while the ancient Greeks and many modern parliamentary systems conduct most of their business in public, representative democracies (republics, really), have a long history of doing business in private, despite policies that things are done in public. For example, meetings are held in the White House and Congress all day that are private, and most decisions are made in them. Emails and memos in government are often private, because if the public knew about every email, it would be a problem.

Revolution

But things are changing, rapidly.

Because of the Internet, more and more of what used to be private is now public. Email and instant messaging is moving toward public discussions such as forums, Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, Digg and so on.

While we may bemoan the loss of our private lives, there's no doubt this change has happened and will only continue to accelerate. This could be a bad thing -- we love privacy! -- but it can also be a good thing. Public discussions mean things are conducted out in the open, things are more transparent than ever, we are more informed than ever.

We are far from reaching Radical Transparency, but we've been moving in that direction. And this is good, because public discussions are good for the public.

Benefits of Public Discussions

There are many reasons public discussions are better than private ones, but here are a few of the most important to me:

• It scales much better than 1-to-1 communication (such as email or IM or direct messages or phone calls). Private discussions take a certain amount of time, which means there's only so many you can have in a given day before you hit a limit. While it's not difficult to have 10 private discussions via email or IM in a day, when you get to 100 it gets more difficult, and when there are thousands, it's impossible, because we just don't have the time. However, you can have public discussions that reach 10 people, or 100, or thousands, or even millions, and the discussions themselves could take the same amount of time each day -- even if you're reaching more and more people.
• It benefits many rather than just two people. If you and I discuss the solutions to our blogging problems one-on-one, only we benefit ... but if we discuss it in front of everyone, then everyone benefits. The public benefits from public discussions on policies, on solutions to problems, and so on -- while very few benefit from private discussions.
• It also allows more people to get involved, enriching the conversation. Two people discussing something is good. Three or 10 or a thousand is better -- while it's harder to get agreement, I believe you're more likely to get some great ideas, and the best ideas tend to come to the top eventually, especially when an environment of rational discourse is encouraged, rather than name calling and yelling.
• It makes the most of my communication time and efforts, as I only have to communicate a concept once when I do it publicly, rather than over and over when I do it privately.
• It removes the problems that come from secrecy. When things are discussed in secret, things happen that we might not want others to know about. Government backroom deals and corruption are only allowed when things happen in secret -- if everything were conducted in public, none of that would happen. Corporations, if they had to conduct all communications in public, would never pollute, would never have sweatshops, would never treat their employees badly, because they wouldn't want everyone to know about it. Removing secrecy has a cleansing effect.

When Private is Better

Are public discussions always better? No, I don't think so. There are times when we want private discussions. For example:

• Conversations between me and my wife -- you guys really don't want to know that much about me!
• Similarly, any conversations between friends or family on personal matters -- that's no one else's business.

That's mostly it, I think, unless I'm missing something. Discussions on business, government, or other governmental matters are better held in public. That's not done now, and that's not what our culture believes, for now ... but I believe it will change. People will want discussions to be public, more and more, as they demand to know why things happen, and will be less and less happy with things done in secret.

And as organizations -- such as Zen Habits -- begin to experiment with Radical Transparency, people will show their preference for this type of organization, and they will vote in terms of their dollar, time and most importantly, attention.