I wasnt the best academic student in the world. I went to college, and I graduated, but I spent the majority of my time interacting with people rather than in the classroom. I think thats why I like Sociology so much, and in particular, Organizational Studies, which at the time, was a new inter-disciplinary major. We had to take Political Science classes, Communications classes and Philosophy classes in addition to Sociology classes.

In my attempt to graduate in 4 years, my senior year (we were on the quarter system) I took 5 classes fall quarter, 6 classes winter quarter and 5 classes spring quarter. When I told my advisor my decision to take 4 Sociology classes and a Philosophy class my last quarter, she responded, “See you in the summer when you are making up those F’s.”

(When I did walk across the stage, she was also the first person to congratulate me. I think she was just happy that I would no longer be bothering her, rather than the fact that I graduated on time.)

Why is this important? Because that single Philosophy class changed how I see and understand teams and communities.

In that class we studied John Locke, an Empiricist, who wrote on concepts that included Social Contracts: that leaders can only govern people if the people want to be governed, therefore government needs checks and balances. Even more controversial was his thoughts that revolution was not only a right, but an obligation in certain circumstances.

But, thats not what attracted me to his thinking. Locke also wrote that a society/community should be a like a horse corral, where the corral walls were the laws, and as long as the horses staying inside the corral, they could have complete freedom (or free will).

Which would mean that laws or rules were really not restrictive, but structural in nature. Laws allow people to define the boundries of their communities, and if leaders make the laws, the laws would by definition (because leaders cant lead unless they are followed) benefit the community and the community members.

There exists a positive tension, and a social contract, between the law makers and the members of the community.

Which begs two questions:

1) Does this dynamic exist online? Is there an implied social contract between users and site owers (for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or are users left to police themselves?

2) If this exists online, how are law makers selected; how are they removed; how are the laws enforced?

It seems that social media has brought the concept of community to the fore front. Did communities exist online before MySpace? Of course. I remember at the age of 10 and 11 interacting with people on BBSes and MUDs. I had online friends from all over the world, and a developed persona. Did those people know I was 11? Probably not, but it didnt matter, we were all members of the same community.

Twitter is the latest online phenomeon, which as a basic communication tool, has begun to morph into a real community. Laura Fitton wrote that Twitter is a village  and Shel Israel took up the concept, even suggesting officers, such as Chris Brogan for mayor. Half joke, half discussion on online community, it is now readily accepted that Twitter is an online community.

So what happens next? Like most newly formed societies, self proclaimed law makers came out of the wood work. And, interestingly, two things happened:

1) This law maker was summarily rejected.

Check out the comments, most of them break apart and dismiss the majority of the “laws” put forth. What does this wannabe king do? Writes another post proclaiming new laws. Like many wannabe political leaders, he forgot that to lead, he needs followers, and no one was following.

2) There was a realization that Twitter, as a community, was self policing.

The ability to follow/unfollow people relatively anonymously coupled with the speed at which communication flows, creates a world where bullshit dies quickly, and bullshitters disappear just as fast.

Even more interestingly, when a member of the Twitter community is rejected by Twitter itself to the objections of the community, the community reacts as Chris Brogan did with Foul Bastard’s ejection.

The walls to the Twitter corral are being built by the horses. And as long as there is the ability to reject and eliminate rogue ponies organically and quickly, there will be no need for law makers. Locke’s concept of a social concept is no more true than within Twitter itself.

Here is a real world example: Follow me on Twitter: @micah. I break almost all the rules that were postulated, but I have quite a few followers. One would imagine that if I was truly a rule breaker, I would be rejected by the community, and have little or no followers. Take a moment to check out the wannabe rule makers twitter page. He has very few followers, yet he follows his own rules (not really, since the majority of his tweets are shilling his blog post). And that should be the best indicator that Locke’s concepts are alive and well in the Twitter community.

Popularity: 6% [?]