The latest technological phenomenon to get the attention of the New

York Times is "mobbing." An announcement spreads around

blogs, listservs, and bulletin boards: everyone is supposed to show

up at a particular time and place to do some particular, but random,

thing, like asking a Macy’s sales clerk for a "love rug" or

shouting "Yes, Yes!" Thanks to the viral nature of the Internet,

the idea spreads and people actually show up.

Are smart mobs "The

Next Social Revolution?" as Howard Rheingold is arguing? They

certainly fit the current ideal for social organizations: completely

decentralized, with

minimal costs of entry and exit, no hierarchy, and no rules. I have

absorbed so much conventional social theory that I’m very skeptical

about this ideal. I assume that the creation of public goods is difficult

and requires a solution to the classic free-rider problem (namely: people

won’t contribute much of value if the good is enjoyed by everyone else).

Destroying stuff is much easier. Therefore, I would guess that the new

phenomenon of "smart mobs" will be used much more effectively

to destroy than to create. People may show up to shout "yes, yes!"

(which is funny and costs nothing), but they won’t use "smart mob"

methods for real constructive action. I also assume that one of the

trickiest parts of social organization is finding ways to make actors

appropriately accountable. I don’t see how a smart mob can be forced

to answer for its behavior. However, all this could be wrong. (I’m very

"twentieth century.")