Digital Trust, An Overview

Gael Van Weyenbergh, Meoh - Updated August 29, 2024.

Abstract

This paper explores the critical role of digital trust in shaping online environments and the future of social
organizations, which are increasingly intertwined with digital infrastructures. It critiques current digital
systems that, despite enabling connectivity, often fail to foster genuine human connections, hindering a
truly collaborative internet. The paper advocates for human-centric models where trust is foundational to
digital networks, governance, and incentives, emphasizing the need for digital systems that reflect social
trust dynamics. Highlighting data cooperatives' potential in reforming data governance, it also examines
the challenges of scaling trust in digital spaces. The paper concludes with practical applications,
advocating for a transdisciplinary approach to building a more resilient and trustworthy digital ecosystem.

1
1. Introduction 3
2. The Paradoxes of the Trustless Internet 4
3. The Need for a New Framework 4
3.1 The Building Blocks of a Trusted Internet 5
3.2 The Promise of Data Cooperatives 7
3.3 Practical Implementation of Trust-Based Frameworks 10
4. Future Research 14
4.1 Areas of Interest for Future Research 14
4.2 Practical Applications for Future Research 15
5. Conclusion 16
6. Key Takeaways 17
7. Appendix A: Foundations of Trust 19
7.1 Prerequisites for Trust 19
7.2 The Nature of Trust 19
7.3 Preliminary Understandings 20
8. Appendix B: Strategies for Scaling Digital Trust 20
8.1 Scaling Trust Without Losing It 21
8.2 Capturing the Elusive Nature of Trust 21
8.3 Establishing New Governance and Incentives 21
9. References 22

2
1. Introduction

The advent of the digital age has expanded the question of trust into the digital domain, introducing new
challenges such as anonymity, data privacy, and algorithmic decision-making (Castelluccia & Le Metayer,
2019). While trust in system integrity and transparency of decision-making processes is crucial, this study
emphasizes the social dynamics of interpersonal trust. Social digital trust refers to the subjective belief
that a digital entity—whether an individual, organization, or system—will act in a way that benefits or does
not harm the trustor, based on factors like past experiences, reputation, and perceived reliability.

Despite frequent discussions in global forums, trust remains inadequately explored and often
ambiguously defined. Its inherent vulnerabilities make it a challenging concept for the private sector,
which tends to favor mechanisms that minimize reliance on trust. Traditional institutions and markets have
historically been trust-averse, preferring clear chains of command and control over the uncertainties of
trust.

But what exactly is trust? Is it merely a naive belief in the benevolence of others? Trust is paradoxical: it is
the foundation of serious relationships, sound business, and good governance, yet it involves risks that
can make it seem unsuitable for critical matters. Institutions, fundamentally risk-averse, seek strong
guarantees to offset potential negative outcomes, reducing their reliance on trust whenever possible. This
shift towards rigidity becomes problematic in a dynamic world governed by complexity and
interdependence.

As the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals, “Rapid innovation offers the promise of a new era of
prosperity, but instead risks exacerbating trust issues, leading to further societal instability and political
polarization.” Institutions and markets, due to their structural aversion to trust, are ill-equipped to address
these issues, especially as trust in authorities continues to wane. In an increasingly complex and
interdependent world, agility and the ability to act swiftly on matters that defy complete understanding are
essential. Traditional institutions, too rigid to adapt, may find themselves increasingly irrelevant (Ronfeldt,
1996).

Driven by profit incentives, the market often lacks the motivation to address collective interests. A market
player that chooses to prioritize collective good over profit may face a competitive disadvantage, as such
actions can directly impact its bottom line. This limitation hinders the private sector's capacity to address
the collective action problem—a challenge of coordination and cooperation where the best outcome for
the group is not achieved because individuals prioritize their short-term interests over the collective good
(Olson, 1965). Consequently, the future of social organization may increasingly rely on informal,
network-based frameworks that maintain agility in the face of systemic uncertainty, prioritize collective
interests through interdependence, and leverage trust as a foundational element rather than avoiding it.

The rise of digital systems and online communities offers fertile ground for developing these new
frameworks. However, instead of enhancing offline capabilities, social platforms have often overridden
natural social dynamics with profit-driven algorithms and incentives. This has left atomized end-users
hanging at the end of a digital rope, lured by the promise of free communication in exchange for personal
data. In digital systems, trust often shifts from personal relationships to reliance on the integrity of these
systems and their governance processes. Digital platforms act as new intermediaries of trust, connecting
people regardless of personal ties. An extreme example of this trend is blockchain-based networks, which
embed a “strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination” directly into their technical
protocols (De Filippi & Loveluck, 2016).

3
2. The Paradoxes of the Trustless Internet

Web2's influencer-follower dynamics and Web3's tokenized interactions mark a significant shift from
traditional offline connections. Attempts to replicate offline community dynamics online often fall short,
with commercial interests overshadowing genuine engagement. These dynamics can undermine trust and
lead to issues like digital addiction (Meng et al., 2022), compounded by a lack of transparency in
algorithmic processes.

This trustless internet has brought remarkable innovations but also exposed the limitations of tech-only
solutions in building trust, revealing several stark paradoxes:

● Identification without Coordination: It has enabled the identification of problems, solutions, and
resources, as well as connected people ready to engage, yet it has failed to facilitate
self-coordination and collective action at scale (Shirky, 2008). This leaves us facing a frustrating
conundrum in the face of challenges affecting humanity: what seems possible is insufficient, and
what is necessary seems impossible.

● Information without Understanding: While the internet has democratized information, it has
also become a breeding ground for misinformation and disinformation. The oversimplification of
complex issues, coupled with echo chambers and AI-generated content, has eroded public
discourse, hindering collective problem-solving and undermining the foundations of a shared
reality (Lecheler & Egelhofer, 2022).

● Connection without Community: It has connected everyone to anyone, yet it has led to the
atomization of relationships, the polarization of ideas, and a pervasive sense of isolation, resulting
in a lack of trust in both each other and institutions (Turkle, 2011).

Without trust, the internet is wired for communication, not collaboration, and is thus unable to mobilize the
social fabric needed to address complex issues with sophisticated problem-solving capabilities. This
recurring concern highlights the limitations of current market-driven approaches, which are often rooted in
individualistic assumptions and purely technological solutions. Instead, there is a growing recognition that
human-centric models are required (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2023). This shift
acknowledges that trust cannot be fully engineered through technology alone; it requires a safe
technological environment that supports social trust and relational vulnerability.

3. The Need for a New Framework

Recognizing these limitations and paradoxes, it becomes clear that a fundamental restructuring of our
online spaces is essential. The current digital infrastructure, driven by algorithms and profit motives, has
not only failed to foster genuine trust but has also exacerbated issues of misinformation, isolation, and
societal fragmentation. To address these challenges, we must look beyond traditional models and explore
innovative frameworks that prioritize human-centric values and trust-based interactions. This shift requires
a comprehensive approach that begins with a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of trust
(see Appendix A).

The current internet is, in many ways, a manifestation of the industrial revolution’s mindset, built without
fully considering its broader social and ethical impact. This industrial-era approach has led to an internet

4
that prioritizes scale and efficiency over community and trust. As we stand on the cusp of further
technological advancements, it’s worth contemplating that the true computer revolution—with all its
transformative potential—may not have fully occurred yet (Kay, 2024). This realization underscores the
urgent need for a new mindset, one that shifts from seeking how to gain power with new tools to
understanding how the power of these tools can serve a human-centric digital future.

Human-centric digital systems must be designed with both a solid theoretical foundation in ethical
considerations and a commitment to global governance principles. On one hand, ethical system design
demands that systems be inherently self-regulating and promote fairness, transparency, and respect for
individual rights (Ashby, 2020). On the other hand, the global effort to establish norms for digital
governance, as outlined in the UN's Global Digital Compact, emphasizes the need for international
cooperation in creating inclusive and sustainable digital environments (Secretary-General, 2023).

This approach must encompass everything from the architecture of our digital networks to the incentives
that encourage people to connect with reliable and emotionally attuned individuals who deliver on their
promises. It should also extend to the governance structures that support these interactions. Ultimately,
this framework aims to move away from large, impersonal networks characterized by weak social capital
and towards community-sized networks built on strong social capital—networks that can be easily
mobilized to foster meaningful connections and collective action.

3.1 The Building Blocks of a Trusted Internet

In light of these needs, the following building blocks outline the key elements required to construct a more
trustworthy and human-centric digital environment. Central to this effort is creating a network architecture
that mirrors offline community dynamics rather than forcing digital interactions into impersonal online
models (Porter et al., 2012).

1. Network Architecture: From Large to Strong

To foster a more authentic and meaningful online experience, a fundamental shift in network architecture
is necessary. The prevailing many-to-many and one-to-many models, characterized by anonymity and
influencer-driven dynamics, should be replaced by a few-to-few model that mirrors offline social
interactions. This transition encourages deeper connections and a stronger sense of community.

Examples: Platforms like Facebook with limitless "friends," LinkedIn with 500+ connections, or X
(formerly Twitter) with its vast swath of atomized users exemplify a social internet wired for
communication rather than collaboration.

Shift to Few-to-Few Model: This model aligns with the idea of fostering deeper, more authentic
interactions similar to those found in offline relationships. By focusing on smaller, more meaningful
connections, this approach can replicate the depth of offline social interactions in the digital space,
helping to mitigate risk through peer monitoring within a dense social fabric (Granovetter, 1985).

Rejection of Quantitative Metrics: A departure from solely quantitative metrics, such as follower counts
or engagement rates, is essential. These metrics often distort the quality of online interactions and
prioritize superficial engagement over genuine connection. Instead, personal networks acting as units of
social capital should be adopted, capturing the nuances of human relationships and prioritizing human
connection over algorithmic control.

5
2. Incentives: From Platform Profit to Community Purpose

Currently, online interactions are dominated by platform-level incentives designed primarily to drive profits
rather than to serve the interests of the communities they host. These incentives push for increased
online engagement, often distorting natural community dynamics: users are encouraged to accumulate
more friends and followers but experience less depth in relationships; they spend more time online but
encounter more noise; they chase more metrics but find less authenticity. The dictates of algorithms
overdetermine what online experiences or content will look like for those who seek to stand out. In this
scenario, platforms play the music, and users dance to the tune.

Examples: Online experiences are driven by platform-level incentives that prioritize engagement for
profit. This leads to algorithmic control over interactions, forcing content creators on platforms like
Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok to conform to algorithmic preferences, resulting in homogenized content
and reduced diversity of online expressions (Chayka, 2024).

Emphasis on Social Capital: Social capital, defined as the networks of relationships and the ability to
mobilize them, should be the focus of incentives. This shift would move away from promoting algorithmic
engagement and towards empowering users to build and manage social capital at the community level.
Such an approach would allow online behaviors to resonate with other users rather than with platform
algorithms, fostering more authentic and meaningful interactions.

Encouraging Community Accountability: To prevent manipulation and ensure fair interactions, it is

essential to avoid systems that can be easily gamed. Instead, the subjective perception of peers should
act as the primary behavioral incentive, encouraging individuals to maintain trustworthiness and
cooperation to remain attractive within their networks (see Appendix B).

3. Governance: From Autocratic to Democratic

Governance should be viewed as fiduciary representation under the rule of law, ensuring that the interests
of online communities are prioritized and protected. To build a trusted internet, a governance structure
that prioritizes community dynamics is essential.

Examples: Governance models such as OpenAI's opaque decision-making processes (Verma et al.,
2023), X (formerly Twitter)'s governance concentrated under a single figure (Wells & Rhoden-Paul, 2024),
or scandals like Cambridge Analytica (Boldyreva et al., 2018), reflect autocratic governance systems that
may no longer align with 21st-century aspirations for inclusivity and transparency.

Prioritization of Community Dynamics: This approach emphasizes the need for platforms to support,
rather than dominate, community-driven processes. By respecting the autonomy of online communities
and ensuring they adhere to broader ethical and legal standards, platforms can foster a more inclusive
and responsive digital environment.

New Data Intermediaries: Data cooperatives represent a promising alternative to corporate governance.
These cooperatives empower users to control their data and share in the benefits of its utilization. By
placing decision-making authority at the community level through the cooperative principle of one
member, one vote, and through fiduciary representation, data cooperatives create a more inclusive and
equitable digital environment. This model reduces the risk of platform overreach and censorship, fostering
a sense of autonomy and ownership among users.

6
3.2 The Promise of Data Cooperatives

Data cooperatives, which combine networked technologies, governance, and incentives, offer an
innovative approach to data management. By focusing on democratic governance and collective
interests, these cooperatives embody a paradigm shift in data management based on principles like
collective ownership, data sovereignty, fiduciary representation, and equitable benefit-sharing (Bühler et
al., 2023).

These cooperatives are voluntary collaborations where personal data is pooled for the benefit of the
community, providing shared insights that would otherwise be inaccessible. They offer a collective,
participatory model of data governance that stands in stark contrast to the profit-driven motives of
traditional digital platforms. By focusing on the collective good rather than individual profit, data
cooperatives have the potential to redefine the dynamics of trust and control in the digital ecosystem.

Historically, data cooperatives echo the role of trade unions and cooperative banks in balancing economic
and social power during the industrialization era (Hardjono & Pentland, 2021). Just as these institutions
helped distribute power more equitably in the past, data cooperatives today work to counteract the
concentration of data control by a few powerful entities. They offer a more sustainable and inclusive
model for managing personal data, enhancing trust among members, leveraging collective bargaining
power for fairer engagement with companies, and providing a secure, consent-based data-sharing
ecosystem. In this way, data cooperatives embody the shift from data privacy to data ownership as a new
megatrend.

Early initiatives such as the Decode project laid the groundwork for developing data cooperatives by
experimenting with data ownership models and privacy-enhancing technologies (Sagarra et al., 2019).
These pioneering efforts demonstrated the potential for data cooperatives to offer a secure, collective
approach to managing personal data, setting the stage for more advanced and widespread adoption of
this concept.

Data cooperatives are also gaining legal recognition as new data intermediaries under the European
Union's Data Governance Act (DGA). This legislative framework provides a degree of clarity by explicitly
recognizing the role of data cooperatives. However, the DGA leaves room for interpretation and potential
national deviations (Bayamlioglu, 2021), and it has been criticized for overlooking crucial components
necessary for the growth and scalability of data cooperatives (Mannan et al., 2019). Internal limitations,
incoherences, and uncertainties resulting from its interplay with the broader EU data law framework
(Carovano & Finck, 2023) also pose challenges. Despite these hurdles, the legal acknowledgment of data
cooperatives marks an important step toward formalizing their role in the digital economy.

In Germany, the Bauform eG project offers a compelling example of how data cooperatives can serve as
intermediaries in complex industries, such as the electrification of the construction sector. Small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are the primary stakeholders in this sector, face significant
challenges in managing the intricacies of smart grids. By pooling resources and leveraging shared data
through a cooperative model, these SMEs can gain better insights and foresight capabilities while building
a movement towards secure, sovereign data exchange. This aims to significantly boost efficiency and
foster innovation within the construction sector. Additionally, the power of this newly available pooled data
enables lenders and investors to improve their understanding and risk assessment for SME financing,
helping them secure loans and reconnect with the financial sector (Stein et al., 2023).

7
The concept of data cooperatives is not limited to these specific use cases. It has broader applications
that can be extended to various sectors:

● Cross-Border Data Sharing and Research Collaboration: Data cooperatives can streamline
global collaboration by facilitating the seamless exchange of research and information across
borders, fostering innovation and collective problem-solving on a global scale (Fung et al., 2024).

● Urban Policy Planning: Leveraging data cooperatives to develop smarter urban environments
by integrating strategies for sustainable architecture, soft mobility, pollution control, and public
health improvements, enhancing the quality of urban life.

● Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Empowering indigenous communities to manage natural

resources, biodiversity, and reforestation. Collaborating with governments, institutions, and the
private sector, these cooperatives ensure indigenous control over data, fostering economic
benefits and preventing digital colonialism (Carroll et al., 2020).

● Altruistic Data Sharing: Facilitating responsible data-sharing for societal benefits, especially in
healthcare and environmental conservation, addressing critical challenges and driving positive
change.

● Decarbonization and Industry Applications: Data cooperatives can play a key role in reducing
carbon emissions across supply chains, agriculture, and other industries. By providing actionable
insights and fostering collaboration between stakeholders committed to sustainability, these
cooperatives drive innovation and efficiency through better resource management and cleaner
production practices (UNCTAD, 2024).

● Agriculture and Supply Chains Optimization: Empowering producers and businesses with
access to data, simulations, and forecasts that enable sustainable transformation, improved
productivity, and lower environmental footprints. This is achieved through more transparent and
efficient supply chains, improving resilience to climate risks and market fluctuations.

● Disinformation Mitigation: Data cooperatives offer a novel approach to combating

disinformation by empowering individuals to control their data, enforcing transparency, supporting
fact-checking, and reducing echo chambers through diversified information flows. By collectively
controlling data, cooperatives limit platforms’ ability to amplify false information through
micro-targeting and profit-driven algorithms.

● Impact Investment and Economic Development: Data cooperatives can attract impact
investors by pooling resources and aligning incentives to generate both social and financial
returns. By harnessing social capital, these cooperatives provide more equitable access to
resources for underserved populations, driving inclusive economic growth.

● Policy-Making: Data cooperatives offer a robust foundation for data-driven and evidence-based
policy-making. By providing access to comprehensive, well-managed datasets and committing to
a multistakeholder process, these cooperatives enable policymakers, researchers, and
institutions to make informed decisions grounded in reliable data, leading to more effective and
impactful outcomes.

8
● Conscious Leadership: Data cooperatives empower leaders by providing access to previously
unavailable datasets, fostering leadership that is both informed and deeply rooted in social
capital. This approach prioritizes community recognition, fiduciary representation, and
interdependence, enabling more responsible and conscious governance.

● Children Protection: Data cooperatives can play a crucial role in safeguarding children from the
potential risks associated with AI technologies in toys. By uniting a diverse group of
stakeholders—including child protection agencies, ethical bodies, parent representatives,
technical partners, and cybersecurity specialists—these cooperatives can ensure that AI-powered
toys are developed and deployed with a focus on safety and well-being. This collective approach
helps mitigate the risks of exposing infants and children to AI, creating a safer digital environment
for the most vulnerable.

● Non-Financial Reporting and Compliance: Large companies now face mandatory non-financial
and sustainability information statements (NFSI), including climate-related financial disclosures
(CRFD). While these requirements apply to larger organizations, SMEs—despite being
exempt—are increasingly encouraged or expected to adopt similar practices as part of their
supply chain involvement or stakeholder demands. Data cooperatives could play a critical role by
offering SMEs the tools and expertise needed to manage sustainability reporting and compliance
in a more accessible and cost-effective way, helping them stay aligned with market expectations.

Data Cooperatives as Trusted Intermediaries in High-Impact Use Cases

Beyond the specific applications mentioned, data cooperatives hold the potential to serve as trusted
intermediaries in complex, high-stakes digital initiatives that require careful balancing of privacy,
transparency, and societal impact.

● CBDCs and Financial Inclusion: As central banks explore digital currencies, data cooperatives
play a vital role in ensuring privacy and fostering financial inclusion. Concerns about CBDCs
being used for control and surveillance emphasize the need for privacy safeguards (Huigsloot,
2023). Acting as intermediaries, data cooperatives manage sensitive personal data transparently
and ethically, ensuring equitable distribution of financial resources.

● UBI and Economic Equity: In the context of Universal Basic Income (UBI), data cooperatives
ensure transparent and fair data management, preventing fraud and protecting privacy. As trusted
intermediaries, they build public confidence in UBI systems, aligning with ILO standards on social
inclusion, benefit adequacy, and equitable financing to support UBI models that promote equity
and social justice (Ortiz et al., 2018).

● AI and Ethical Governance: The integration of AI into various aspects of society presents both
opportunities and challenges (Walz & Firth-Butterfield, 2019). Data cooperatives can serve as
ethical stewards in the deployment of AI, ensuring that algorithms are trained on data that is
accurate, diverse, and free from bias. They can also facilitate the development of AI systems that
are transparent and accountable, providing a check against potential abuses of power and
ensuring that AI technologies are used in ways that benefit society as a whole.

By associating a variety of stakeholders for collective benefits, data cooperatives embody a significant
shift from neoliberal individual data ownership to collective, public value-centric approaches, aligning with
the emerging trend of Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs). These DPIs represent foundational digital

9
systems and services provided by the government or public sector to support and enhance the
functioning of a digital economy and society. These digital infrastructures are recognized as critical
enablers of digital transformation to improve public service delivery at scale (UNDP, 2024). Importantly,
data cooperatives could be the vehicle that brings civil society into these digital public-private partnerships
as equal stakeholders.

However, while data cooperatives represent a promising approach to data management, they are still an
emerging trend facing significant challenges (Platform Cooperativism Consortium, 2022). Issues such as
data responsibility and the evolving legal landscape create substantial barriers to their widespread
adoption. Regulatory clarity remains elusive, necessitating collaborations with legal experts and AI tools
for ongoing adaptation. Public awareness is limited, making targeted educational campaigns essential to
demystify the concept of data cooperatives. Additionally, technical and financial sustainability challenges
range from effective data management practices to the development of innovative financing models.

Smaller cooperatives, in particular, struggle with accountability and transparency, underscoring the need
for standardized best practices and clear guiding principles. Entry into established markets often meets
resistance, highlighting the importance of strategic alliances and advocacy for open standards.
Operational constraints, including resource limitations and technical challenges, further complicate their
scalability and overall impact. As these cooperatives aggregate increasingly valuable data, they may be
driven towards federation to enhance influence and resource-sharing (UNStats, 2023).

Yet, this federative approach must carefully balance centralization and decentralization, reflecting the
complex power dynamics of the digital age. One potential way to address this balance is through the
implementation of a few-to-few network architecture and a new set of incentives rooted in social capital,
as discussed above. These elements create virtuous loops, where the network architecture, social
capital-driven incentives, and cooperative governance complement and enhance each other, effectively
overcoming their respective shortcomings. This synergy ensures that trust, accountability, and economic
opportunities are distributed effectively across the network, preserving the integrity of decentralized
structures while still allowing for coordinated action at scale.

3.3 Practical Implementation of Trust-Based Frameworks

While the conceptualization of trust-based frameworks offers significant potential, it is important to

acknowledge that this exploration remains speculative and requires further in-depth, transdisciplinary
research. The following design is intended as a starting point for understanding how trust-based
frameworks could be practically implemented. It is not meant to be a definitive or one-size-fits-all solution,
as different contexts will require tailored approaches. Additionally, while this model is aimed at enhancing
collaboration and fostering trust, it may not outperform existing social networks in terms of communication
efficiency, which have been optimized for different purposes.

To better illustrate how such a trust-based framework might look in practice, we can start by examining
LinkedIn, the professional-focused social media platform. LinkedIn serves as a real-world example of a
platform that connects individuals based on professional interests and shared goals. However, to truly
mold this platform to better meet the needs of trust-centric collaboration, several key modifications and
enhancements are necessary.

10
A. Network Architecture: Scaling at the Speed of Trust

A trust-based framework requires a fundamental shift from large, impersonal networks to smaller, stronger
networks where connections are meaningful and trust is central. This transformation begins with the
vetting process, where verifying users thoroughly is crucial in reinforcing the idea of strong networks
based on real profiles. By ensuring that each user represents a genuine individual, the network maintains
its integrity and fosters an environment where trust can thrive.

However, LinkedIn's current model introduces a seemingly innocuous feature that undermines this very
goal: the display of connections capped at 500+. This feature creates a perverse incentive to achieve this
informal milestone, driven by the desire to be perceived as an influencer or to showcase a vast network of
professional connections. While this may elevate an individual's perceived importance in the business
world, it dilutes the overall trust within their network, highlighting a user-centric rather than a
community-centric platform.

When a user's connections are motivated by quantity rather than quality, the network becomes a blend of
close collaborators, casual acquaintances met at conferences, and cold-call contacts. This amalgamation
renders the network of personal connections unreadable and, ultimately, unusable to peers who seek
genuine, trust-based relationships. The noise generated by such diluted connections overwhelms the
signal, leading to a significant loss of social capital that could otherwise be leveraged if trusted
relationships were kept intact and prioritized.

To address this, the shift to a few-to-few model is essential. Networks should be capped at the Dunbar
Number (150), which represents the cognitive limit of stable social relationships. This artificial scarcity
creates value and serves as a behavioral incentive to belong to social clusters of perceived high value or
potential. However, this scarcity is tempered in several ways:

● Distinction Between Contacts and Connections: Similar to LinkedIn's model, there would be a
distinction between contacts (a broader contact repository that can be accessed for simple
communication and messaging purposes) and connections (peers with whom one is willing to
engage reputation and credibility, share interests, and facilitate new introductions). The personal
network thus becomes a true collective representation of one's social capital, following the
understanding that we are who we associate with.

● Accessible Social Portfolios: While the number of direct connections is limited, a vast pool of
potential connections is available just a few handshakes away in the social portfolios of our own
peers. This is supported by the six degrees of separation theory, which is reduced to an average
of 3.57 degrees on social networks (Edunov et al., 2016).

● Self-Similarity and Fractal Networks: Personal networks should be designed with self-similarity,
resembling fractal shapes where smaller structures replicate the characteristics of the whole. This
ensures that trust is not diluted as the network grows; instead, peers act as essential social
bridges, connecting their trusted network to new opportunities beyond one's immediate social
horizon. They filter out negative influences while enabling meaningful connections, thus
enhancing social capital.

● Boundaries and Interfaces: Peers serve as both boundaries and interfaces (Cilliers, 2001),
acting as barriers to untrustworthy influences while connecting their network to valuable external
opportunities. Unlike LinkedIn, where users can reach out to second or third-degree connections

11
with ease, this model would introduce an additional layer of friction by requiring first-degree peers
to facilitate new interactions. This discourages spam requests and fosters a culture of meaningful
engagement.

● Distinction Between Personal Networks and Social Groups: Another way to temper the
scarcity created by capping personal networks at the Dunbar number is by distinguishing
between personal networks of connections and social groups. While personal networks are
limited to 150 connections, reflecting close, trusted relationships, social groups are theoretically
limitless in number. These groups can represent specific areas of interest, ranging from local
communities to the entire network encompassing all users. This structure allows users to engage
deeply with their closest peers while still participating in broader communities of interest, thus
balancing intimacy with broader social engagement.

By focusing on smaller, more meaningful networks, leveraging self-similarity, and introducing behavioral
mechanisms that promote quality interactions, the platform can better replicate the depth of offline
interactions in the digital space. This ensures that social capital is preserved, effectively utilized, and
continually expanded through trust-based connections.

B. Incentives: Rooted in Social Capital

Traditional online platforms are structured to maximize engagement for profit, often at the expense of
authentic interactions. In contrast, a community-level incentive system prioritizes the building and
management of social capital and the fulfillment of community purpose. This shift encourages users to
engage in behaviors that resonate with their peers rather than with impersonal algorithms. By doing so,
users contribute to the creation of a more meaningful and trustworthy digital environment.

LinkedIn, while relatively less intrusive with algorithmic content curation, has nonetheless introduced
features such as short video formats and an increased emphasis on connecting with unknown peers.
These features can dilute the platform's potential, which is already compromised by the high
signal-to-noise ratio mentioned earlier and by the emphasis on personal achievements rather than on the
network's collective potential. The platform's emphasis on expanding networks indiscriminately may lead
to superficial connections, detracting from the depth and authenticity that a truly community-driven
network would prioritize.

● Balancing Incentives with Counter-Incentives: In the absence of algorithmic vetting or explicit

incentives, perceived rewards must be balanced with counter-incentives. For example, while
gaining introductions from connection requests is a potential benefit, there is also the risk of
spamming peers, which could result in being excluded from desirable social clusters. This
balance is crucial to maintaining the integrity of social interactions and ensuring that users act
thoughtfully and responsibly.

● Subjective Perception of Peer Activity: The subjective perception of peer activity, which cannot
be precisely measured or accounted for, leads to several important outcomes:

a. Path of Least Resistance and Preferential Attachment: The subjective evaluation of peer
activity reveals the path of least resistance, leading to preferential attachment with peers who are
both reliable and emotionally attuned. This dynamic fosters connections with those perceived as
competent and empathetic, enhancing the quality of interactions.

12
b. Conscious and Empathetic Engagement: The need to anticipate how peers might perceive
or react to one's actions encourages users to consider others' perspectives before engaging. This
promotes more conscious and empathetic interactions, where users are mindful of the potential
impact of their behavior on others.

c. Social Portfolios as Units of Social Capital: Social portfolios serve as dynamic units of
social capital, capturing the nuanced value of trust without reducing it to simplistic metrics.
Artificially capped, these portfolios function like a finite deck of cards, where users aim to build the
strongest hand by carefully selecting and shifting peers between contacts and connections. This
scarcity motivates users to be part of the most valuable networks, driving them to maintain
trustworthiness and meaningful relationships. However, this reality also reflects the inherent
limitations of human interactions, where accommodating everyone is impossible. The digital
nature of these portfolios can introduce a degree of harshness, potentially hindering
trust-building—a challenge that requires careful consideration. Practical implementation and
testing may reveal ways to soften this process. Additionally, this system encourages a
'coopetitive' model, balancing cooperation with competition, a strategy observed in nature and
increasingly valued in business practices (Bouncken et al., 2015). The distributed memory of
digital interactions ensures that behaviors have lasting consequences, encouraging responsible
and thoughtful engagement.

● Community Self-Regulation: In a system where trust, accountability, checks, and balances are
maximally distributed, the purely subjective (and sometimes unjust or unfair) appreciation of
peers' actions and interactions plays a significant role. Actions have consequences, and negative
behavior could lead to social ostracism or exclusion from valuable social portfolios. However,
because social capital is shared among interconnected social portfolios—especially those who
facilitated introductions—the community has a vested interest in preventing the spread of
collateral damage. This dynamic leads to a self-regulating or auto-immune process, where the
community collectively addresses adversarial acts and maintains the integrity of the network.

Ultimately, the shift from platform-driven incentives to community-focused incentives represents a

fundamental change in how online interactions are structured and rewarded. By prioritizing social capital
and authentic engagement over algorithmic manipulation, these frameworks have the potential to create a
more resilient and trustworthy digital ecosystem, where users are empowered to build meaningful
connections and contribute to the collective well-being of their communities.

C. Governance: Committed to the Multistakeholder Process

To foster a trusted internet, governance must transition from autocratic, top-down models to more
democratic, community-driven structures. In this framework, governance is viewed as fiduciary
representation under the rule of law, ensuring that the interests of online communities are prioritized and
protected.

Imagine a LinkedIn-like network evolving into a cooperative entity, legally organized as a consortium of
member organizations. These could include academic institutions, the private sector, civil society, youth
and indigenous representatives, the public sector, technical partners, advocacy groups, ethical bodies,
NGOs, CSOs, foundations, and user representatives. This cooperative governance model would be
committed to multistakeholder cooperation, ensuring that diverse voices contribute to decision-making.

13
● Cooperative Structure: This LinkedIn-like network, as a cooperative, would place
decision-making authority at the community level. The cooperative principle of "one member, one
vote" would be applied, allowing each member organization within the consortium to have an
equal say in governance matters. This would significantly contrast with traditional corporate
governance, where decisions are often made by a select few with disproportionate influence.

● Nested Group Governance: To manage the complexity of such a diverse network, governance
could be organized into nested groups operating at different levels, from local to global. These
groups would tackle specific tasks and challenges relevant to their context and scale, ensuring
that decision-making remains agile and context-sensitive. This structure would help address
issues ranging from local community concerns to global digital governance.

● Accountability through Social Networks: The digital cooperative’s leadership, operating under
fiduciary principles and the rule of law, would be embedded within the personal networks of
relationships that permeate various groups. This would lead to increased accountability, as social
capital is collectively shared and leadership is inherently connected to the community it serves.
The network’s governance would benefit from the checks and balances mentioned earlier,
ensuring that power is not centralized and that leaders remain responsive to the needs and
concerns of their members.

● Balancing Formal Groups and Informal Networks: The cooperative governance model would
balance formal structures with the informal networks of relationships that crosscut various groups.
While formal groups could represent different facets of the global governance structure, such as
various data cooperatives and federations of sub-groups, informal networks would help smooth
out potential in-group/out-group dynamics. Shared interests across groups would facilitate
cooperation, while the personal connections within the network would foster trust and
collaboration across the broader digital ecosystem.

The proposed cooperative model fundamentally shifts the traditional user experience seen on networks
like X, Facebook, TikTok, or LinkedIn. Instead of platforms driven by algorithms that prioritize engagement
for profit, this model fosters a community-centered approach where users have greater control and
ownership of their data. It emphasizes meaningful connections, accountability, and shared governance,
transforming digital interactions from transactional to relational. This shift not only has the potential to
enhance trust and collaboration but also empowers users to actively participate in shaping the digital
spaces they inhabit, making them more inclusive, equitable, and aligned with the collective good.

4. Future Research

4.1 Areas of Interest for Future Research

Trust and Social Scalability: As digital society evolves, new scalability mechanisms are essential. Social
scalability refers to the ability of systems to handle an increasing number of participants or interactions
without sacrificing performance or trustworthiness (Szabo, 2017). Traditionally centralized systems are
increasingly inadequate for today’s digital landscape, where balancing centralization with human-centric,
decentralized frameworks is crucial. Future research should focus on how trust—rooted in personal,
interdependent relationships—can be integrated into decentralized networks, using concepts like the
Small Worlds phenomenon (Watts & Strogatz, 1998) to facilitate cooperation across social scales.

14
Trust and Reciprocity: The role of reciprocity in digital trust systems merits deeper exploration. Unlike
transactional exchanges, asymmetric exchanges build stronger relational ties and community
accountability, reducing the need for top-down supervision. Future studies should explore how
decentralized platforms can promote these exchanges, ensuring that trust and moral obligations are
embedded within digital ecosystems (Graeber, 2012; Offer, 1997).

Community Dynamics: Research should investigate how online communities, which blend group and
network dynamics, can be strengthened through concepts like trust transitivity and weak ties. These
ideas, as outlined by Granovetter (1973), could enhance social capital and support scalable,
decentralized structures that balance individual autonomy with collective action.

Complexity and Governance: Applying complex systems theory to social contexts presents a promising
research avenue, despite its challenges (Cilliers, 1998). One key insight from complexity theory is that
complex systems behave differently at different scales as group dynamics cannot be predicted from
observing individuals alone. The interconnectedness of social networks, as illustrated by the Small Worlds
phenomenon (Milgram, 1967), suggests that local interactions can significantly impact global outcomes.
Future studies should explore how decentralized governance models can leverage these dynamics at
multiple scales—individual, group, and network-wide—to foster trust and cohesion in digital environments.

The Role of Emotions: Emotions are a fundamental component in shaping perceptions and behaviors
online. Understanding how emotions influence trust in digital entities is crucial for designing effective
trust-building strategies. Future research should examine the psychological and emotional factors that
drive trust in online environments and how these can be leveraged or mitigated in digital systems.

The Impact of Cultural Differences: Cultural factors significantly influence how individuals perceive and
build trust online. Exploring these differences is essential for developing more inclusive and culturally
sensitive approaches to fostering trust in the digital age. Research should focus on how cultural norms
and values affect trust-building and how digital platforms can adapt to diverse cultural contexts.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Scaling Trust: Artificial intelligence has the potential to enhance
digital trust by identifying trustworthy individuals and communities, analyzing behavior and past
interactions to foster secure connections at scale. However, AI also introduces risks such as biased
algorithms and data breaches. Future research should focus on ensuring AI systems are transparent, fair,
and trustworthy, with careful management to protect privacy and maintain ethical standards in digital
environments.

4.2 Practical Applications for Future Research

While the theoretical exploration of trust and its dynamics in digital environments is crucial, it is equally
important to ground these concepts in practical, real-world applications. The following suggestions
highlight how each area of research can be practically approached, tested, and refined to ensure that
theoretical insights lead to actionable outcomes.

Community Living Labs: Community living labs offer a dynamic environment where real-world social
interactions can be observed and tested. These labs could serve as experimental grounds for research
into trust and social scalability, allowing researchers to trial different trust-building strategies within local
communities before scaling them to larger networks. This approach would help validate theories in a
controlled yet realistic setting, ensuring that scalability mechanisms are both effective and adaptable to
varying social contexts.

15
Digital Sandboxes: Digital sandboxes provide a controlled environment where researchers can
experiment with new models of trust, reciprocity, and governance in digital spaces. By simulating
real-world digital interactions, these sandboxes allow for the testing of decentralized platforms and the
observation of how trust dynamics play out in different scenarios. This method is particularly useful for
exploring how to avoid gaming of systems and ensuring that incentives align with community-driven
outcomes rather than platform-driven profits.

Academic Research Hubs: Academic institutions are well-positioned to act as incubators for innovative
trust-related research. By establishing collaborative research hubs, universities can create spaces where
new community dynamics and governance models can be developed and tested. These hubs could also
facilitate interdisciplinary research, bringing together experts from fields such as psychology, sociology,
computer science, and ethics to address the complex challenges of digital trust.

Cross-Cultural Digital Sandboxes: To address the influence of cultural differences on trust,

cross-cultural digital sandboxes could be established. These environments would allow researchers to
experiment with trust-building strategies across different cultural settings, helping to identify best practices
for global digital platforms. This approach would ensure that digital trust solutions are inclusive and
culturally sensitive, addressing the diverse needs of users around the world.

Digital Governance, Ethical Data Management, and AI: As AI becomes increasingly central to digital
ecosystems, the interconnection between digital governance and AI is more crucial than ever. Effective
digital governance cannot be separated from discussions on AI, as both are deeply intertwined with data
management. To address these challenges, AI ethics labs—formed through partnerships between
academic institutions and tech companies—should focus on rigorously testing AI systems for
trustworthiness, transparency, and bias. These labs play a pivotal role in ensuring that AI-driven platforms
align with ethical standards and governance frameworks, fostering digital environments where trust and
data integrity are paramount.

Libraries as Anchors in the Global Data Cooperative Network: The international network of libraries
can play a pivotal role in building the knowledge society of tomorrow by serving as the backbone of data
cooperative networks. Historically, libraries have curated information and promoted literacy, and they are
now redefining their role in the digital era. Their impact is particularly significant in the Global South,
where they serve as critical digital access points and drivers of digital literacy. By leveraging their
repositories and expertise, libraries can ensure that the benefits of data cooperatives reach even the most
underserved communities.

By integrating these practical approaches into future research, we can ensure that the theoretical insights
gained from studying digital trust are effectively translated into actionable strategies. This will not only
advance our understanding of trust in digital spaces but also provide tangible solutions that can be
implemented to foster more trustworthy and human-centric digital environments.

5. Conclusion

Trust, despite its risks and uncertainties, is essential in human interactions. It fosters shared interests and
interdependencies, offering competitive advantages over risk-averse approaches. However, in today’s
impersonal environments—both online and offline—cultivating trust is increasingly challenging, leading to
a culture that is both risk-averse and trust-averse.

16
We contend that trust can be antifragile when nurtured within a continuum of personal relationships that
permeate the entire social fabric—from individual experiences to broader societal structures. This
continuum already exists and is exemplified by the Small Worlds phenomenon, where any two individuals
are connected by surprisingly short chains of social connections. Yet, in the offline world, this network of
special relationships rooted in trust often remains unseen and its full potential untapped.

The advent of the Internet and the Web has made it possible to illuminate this natural network of
cooperation and unlock its potential, transcending the geographical barriers that constrain traditional
group-based social frameworks. However, these networks remain sensitive to trust barriers. Furthermore,
the incentive and governance models of current online platforms often overshadow Small Worlds
dynamics, inhibiting the dissolution of these trust barriers and limiting the full realization of the potential
inherent in digital networks.

The concept of data cooperatives emerges as a powerful mechanism for navigating trust in the digital age
and counteracting the dynamics of a trustless internet. By promoting privacy, fairness, and democratic
decision-making, these cooperatives address several pitfalls of the trustless internet: the ethical
dimensions of data governance, the more equitable distribution of value, the reduction of privacy and
security risks, and the safeguarding of community dynamics, thereby transforming individuals and
communities into active participants in the digital economy. Data cooperatives offer thus a pathway to
better harness the essence of trust, ultimately paving the way for a human-centric internet—one that truly
values and empowers individuals and communities while effectively addressing the challenges of a digital
world increasingly defined by uncertainty, complexity, and interdependence.

Open-source principles will be key to driving transparency, flexibility, and collaboration in a transformative
digital future. By adopting open-source infrastructure, platforms can enhance accountability, adaptability,
and security, building trust in both the technology and its communities. As digital transformation continues
to reshape our world, the need for trust and cooperation will become even more critical in overcoming
collective action problems and tackling complex, dynamic challenges that exceed the capabilities of any
single organization. This shift will necessitate reimagining trust, and risk, as cornerstones of effective
collaboration, and adopting a mindset that embraces not risk-aversion, but risk-awareness.

In summary, this research highlights the transformative potential of trust when properly integrated into
digital frameworks. By understanding trust as a dynamic, multifaceted concept that thrives in both
personal relationships and larger social structures, we can design systems that not only accommodate
but actively foster trust. The exploration of few-to-few architectures, new incentive systems rooted in
social capital, data cooperatives, and open-source principles underscores a viable path forward, where
decentralized, community-driven governance models could redefine digital interactions. These findings
suggest that future digital infrastructures must prioritize trust as a fundamental component, ensuring that
technology enhances, rather than erodes, the essential human connections that form the bedrock of a
stable, resilient society—allowing us to be the true composers of our digital experiences.

6. Key Takeaways

The exploration of digital trust is not just a theoretical exercise but a critical endeavor that holds the
potential to shape the future of the internet and, by extension, the future of social organizations. Below
are the key insights:

17
1. The Crucial Role of Digital Trust: Digital trust needs to be thoroughly explored as it may hold
the key to the renaissance of the internet, fundamentally impacting the future of social
organizations. While trust is inherently risky, these risks can be mitigated, and the potential
upsides and competitive advantages it offers are too significant to be ignored.

2. The Future of Social Organization: The future of social organization may increasingly rely on
new frameworks that are network-based, aligning with technological advancements and
maintaining agility in a dynamic world. Being network-based means grounding social structures in
personal connections, where trust becomes a core component rather than something to be
avoided. Leveraging trust as a foundational element ensures that these frameworks can adapt
and thrive amid uncertainty.

3. Challenges of the Current Digital Landscape: While the rise of digital systems and online
communities offers fertile ground for the development of new frameworks, current social platforms
have frequently overridden natural social dynamics with profit-driven algorithms and incentives.
This has led to several paradoxes, including the identification of problems and solutions without
coordination, the proliferation of information without understanding, and social connections
without genuine community.

4. The Limitations of a Trustless Internet: The trustless internet has brought remarkable
innovations but has also exposed the limitations of tech-only solutions in building trust. Without
trust, the internet remains wired for communication rather than collaboration, limiting its ability to
mobilize the social fabric needed for addressing complex issues.

5. The Need for Human-Centric Models: There is a growing recognition that human-centric
models are necessary. Trust cannot be fully engineered through technology alone; it requires a
safe technological environment that supports relational vulnerability. New frameworks must
prioritize human-centric values and trust-based interactions, beginning with a deeper
understanding of trust's multifaceted nature.

6. Comprehensive Digital Ecosystem: Building trust requires a holistic approach that

encompasses everything from the architecture of our digital networks to the incentives that
encourage genuine, reliable connections. Governance structures should also support these
interactions, ensuring that trust is maintained and nurtured at every level.

7. The Role of Data Cooperatives: The DGA, a new legislative framework for data intermediaries
(data cooperatives), represents a watershed moment for digital transformation, allowing
communities to take control of data as the main currency of the digital economy.

8. Transdisciplinary Effort: The emergence of a human-centric internet will not result from the
efforts of tech entrepreneurs or data scientists alone. It will require a transdisciplinary approach,
bringing together insights from sociology, psychology, ethics, law, and technology to build a digital
ecosystem that prioritizes trust and human values.

9. Future-Focused Research: Ongoing and future research must focus on exploring the practical
applications of these concepts. This includes developing new social scalability mechanisms,
investigating the role of reciprocity and community dynamics in digital trust, and examining the
influence of emotions, cultural differences, and AI on trust in digital environments.

18
7. Appendix A: Foundations of Trust

7.1 Prerequisites for Trust

Before trust can be cultivated in relationships, systems, or institutions, it must be rooted in fundamental
principles that serve as its foundation. These prerequisites of trust are essential building blocks that
enable individuals to extend trust outward, creating a network of reliable and trustworthy connections. The
following elements—self-trust, recognition of interdependence, and contextual awareness—are key to
understanding and fostering trust in all its forms.

● Trusting Oneself
Trust begins within. Self-trust forms the bedrock of external trust, defining the mental and
emotional space that allows individuals to believe in their own judgment and capabilities. This
internal trust is vital; without it, extending trust to others or expecting others to trust us becomes
impossible.

● Recognition of Interdependence
Trust involves recognizing our interdependence, acknowledging that others play a crucial role in
our lives. By trusting others, we admit our vulnerabilities and our need for external support, which
is vital for fostering supportive and collaborative relationships.

● Trust and Context

Trust is deeply influenced by context, varying significantly depending on the situation and the
environment. For instance, professional settings often prioritize competence and reliability, while
personal relationships value emotional honesty and mutual support. Recognizing the context in
which trust is formed allows for more precise and adaptive trust-building strategies.

7.2 The Nature of Trust

Understanding the nature of trust is crucial for grasping its role and impact on both personal and societal
relationships. Trust is a multifaceted concept, encompassing belief, faith, fragility, reciprocity,
accountability, and an investment in social capital.

● Trust as a Relationship
At its core, trust is fundamentally a relationship—an interaction that defines the “space in
between” people. It begins within the self and extends beyond, forming the essential bridge that
connects individuals. By building and sustaining these connections, trust serves as the glue that
holds relationships, communities, and societies together.

● The Fragility and Antifragility of Trust

Trust is inherently fragile; it takes time to build and can be destroyed in an instant. However, trust
also has antifragile qualities—it can grow stronger under certain conditions. Trust is an
investment that requires effort and dedication, and it often involves a symmetric risk, where both
parties have an interest in maintaining the relationship.

19
● Trust and Reciprocity
Trust thrives on reciprocal behaviors and mutual exchanges, forming a cycle of trust-building
interactions. This reciprocal nature of trust fosters a sense of mutual obligation and strengthens
the bond between individuals, enhancing the overall cohesion and resilience of communities.

● Trust and Accountability

There is no trust without accountability, which is crucial for its maintenance and growth.
Accountability reinforces reliability and integrity, ensuring that individuals and organizations act
responsibly and transparently.

● Trust as an Investment
Trust can be seen as a relational investment. Unlike financial investments, trust cannot be
quantified or transferred; it enriches social capital, representing the relationships and networks
that connect people. Investing in trust fosters growth and long-term stability in relationships and
communities.

7.3 Preliminary Understandings

Trust requires personal relationships to flourish and spread. However, when contrasted with current social
structures, significant challenges emerge. The hierarchical organization of the state and the market often
create artificial boundaries that hinder the natural propagation of trust, prioritizing command, control, and
self-interest over mutual reliance.

In the digital realm, Web2 and Web3 platforms have exacerbated these challenges by promoting
asymmetrical relationships and impersonal interactions, failing to cultivate the kind of community
dynamics that are independent of self-interest and financial incentives. Bridging the widening trust gap
within society requires a return to first principles, envisioning social structures that maintain a continuum
of personal relationships across the social fabric.

Digital platforms could foster the development of new few-to-few architectures, where trusted
relationships grow organically, reflecting the "Small Worlds" phenomenon. This approach emphasizes
deep, meaningful connections over superficial engagements, creating a digital environment where trust
can thrive.

8. Appendix B: Strategies for Scaling Digital Trust

Bridging the trust gap is vital for fostering a cohesive and stable society. Interpersonal trust must
propagate from micro to macro levels, creating a continuum from individual experiences to the broader
social structure. The 'Small Worlds' phenomenon—a natural cooperation network within human
society—provides a strong foundation for this process.

However, an intrinsic paradox arises: due to cognitive limitations, often referred to as Dunbar's number,
trust is typically granted to a relatively small group of people we know well. This presents a significant
challenge in scaling trust beyond this cognitive limit while also addressing emotional vulnerability and
financial risks. Digital tools can innovate where traditional structures fall short, but new concerns such as
privacy, ethics, and accountability arise. Adapting incentives and governance to community dynamics is
crucial to avoiding the flaws of profit-driven platforms.

20
8.1 Scaling Trust Without Losing It

Scaling trust involves balancing local clusters of intimate communities with broader global connections.
Trust requires emotional resonance, not just cognitive engagement. To maintain trusted relationships from
micro to macro levels, trust transitivity—where trusted peers act as social bridges—must be leveraged. A
fractal, self-replicating network structure, made possible by digital technologies, is necessary to bypass
the limitations of scale while enhancing trust across borders.

Key principles include:

● Continuum of trust from micro to macro levels.

● Personal networks capped at the Dunbar limit.
● Scale-independent architecture for trust propagation.
● Triangulated connections by trusted intermediaries, sharing social capital with new entrants.
● Blockchain for provenance and transparency of records, not for tokenized interactions.

8.2 Capturing the Elusive Nature of Trust

The challenge lies in capturing the value of human dynamics—such as reliability, empathy, and emotional
support—on digital platforms without reducing them to simplistic metrics. By capping personal networks at
the Dunbar number, 'social portfolios' can be curated based on subjective appreciation rather than
objective metrics. These portfolios reflect nuanced human connections and serve as digital expressions of
personal attraction and influence, acting as units of social capital.

Reputational value shifts from individual metrics to the collective worth perceived within one’s immediate
network. This approach fosters well-behaved interactions, as each individual represents potential risk to
other curated peers. Social portfolios derive their value from scarcity, the subjective perception of peer
quality, and the vibrancy of network activities.

8.3 Establishing New Governance and Incentives

A new governance system embedded in trust must avoid the flaws of traditional institutions, where
decision-makers are often detached and insulated by bureaucracy. This system must ensure true agency
and align self-interest with community interest, avoiding market dynamics that prioritize individual gain
over collective well-being.

Three critical megatrends align with this need:

● Systemic Governance Challenges: Traditional hierarchies struggle to adapt to complex and

dynamic environments.
● Systemic Incentive Models: The centralized economy of the internet conflicts with the long-term
societal and environmental needs essential for a sustainable future.
● Systemic Organizational Shifts: The rise of digital communication challenges traditional human
organization dynamics, shifting from formal groups to informal networks.

Leveraging inherent networks can foster trust through personal connections, making them ideal for
propagating trust across various social levels. Integrating these principles into governance and incentives
will create a system that supports and enhances trusted personal relationships, fostering a more cohesive
and resilient social structure.

21
9. References

Ashby, M. (2020). Ethical regulators and super-ethical systems. Systems, 8(4), 53.
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8040053

Bayamlioglu, E. (2021). Data cooperative: A new intermediary on the horizon. KU Leuven, Center for IT
and IP Law.

Boldyreva, E. L., Grishina, N. Y., & Duisembina, Y. (2018). Cambridge Analytica: Ethics And Online
Manipulation With Decision-Making Process. In V. Chernyavskaya, & H. Kuße (Eds.), Professional
Сulture of the Specialist of the Future, vol 51. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences
(pp. 91-102). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.02.10

Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis,
and future research directions. Review of managerial science, 9, 577-601.

Bühler, M. M., Calzada, I., Cane, I., Jelinek, T., Kapoor, A., Mannan, M., Mehta, S., Mookerje, V., Nübel,
K., Pentland, A., Scholz, T., Siddarth, D., Tait, J., Vaitla, B., & Zhu, J. (2023). Unlocking the Power of
Digital Commons: Data Cooperatives as a Pathway for Data Sovereign, Innovative and Equitable Digital
Communities. Digital, 3(3), 146–171.

Carovano, G., & Finck, M. (2023). Regulating data intermediaries: The impact of the Data Governance
Act on the EU’s data economy. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105830.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105830

Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons,
M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M.
(2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19.
https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043

Castelluccia, C., & Le Metayer, D. (2019). Understanding algorithmic decision-making: Opportunities and
challenges. In EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service. Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA).

Chayka, K. (2024). Filterworld. Heligo Books.

Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge.

Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, Hierarchies, and Networks in Complex Systems. In International Journal of
Innovation Management​. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 135–147.

De Filippi, P., & Loveluck, B. (2016). The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Crisis of a Decentralized
Infrastructure. Internet Policy Review, Vol. 5, Issue 4.

Edelman Trust Institute. (2024). 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer.

Edunov, S., Bhagat, S., Moira, Diuk, C., & Onur Filiz, I. (2016, February 4). Three and a half degrees of
separation. Facebook Research.

22
Fung, M. L., Stein, J., Bertolaso, M., Bersanetti, F., Gupta, S., Strauß, R., Isaacs, C., & Asjoma, C. (2024).
Improving Global Governance: Data Cooperatives for Global Cooperation. In Think 7, G7 Italia 2024,
Policy Brief.

Graeber, D. (2012). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Melville House.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. In American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, In
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No.3, pp.481-510.

Hardjono, T., & Pentland, A. (2019). Data cooperatives: Towards a foundation for decentralized personal
data management. Cornell University.

Huigsloot, L. (2023, April 7). CBDC will be used for ‘control,’ ECB president admits in vid chat with fake
Zelensky. Cointelegraph.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (2023). Internet Governance Forum Pivots to
Global Digital Compact. SDG Knowledge Hub.

Kay, A. (2024). Digital Cooperation & Diplomacy Meeting - August 2024, People-Centered Internet.

Lecheler, S., & Egelhofer, J. L. (2022). Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News: Understanding
the Supply Side. In J. Strömbäck, S. Wikforss, K. Glüer, T. Lindholm, & H. Oscarsson (Eds.), Knowledge
Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments (pp. 88-106). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003111474

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB25360200

Mannan, M., Bietti, E., Etxeberria, A., & Wong, J. (2019). Data cooperatives in Europe: A legal and
empirical investigation. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(5), 105297.

Meng, S. Q., Cheng, J. L., Li, Y. Y., Yang, X. Q., Zheng, J. W., Chang, X. W., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., Lu, L., Sun,
Y., Bao, Y. P., & Shi, J. (2022). Global prevalence of digital addiction in general population: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 92, 102128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102128

Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 61–67.

Offer, A. (1997). Between the gift and the market: the economy of regard. The Economic History Review,
50: 450-476.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University
Press.

Ortiz, I., Behrendt, C., Acuña-Ulate, A., & Anh, N. Q. (2018). Universal basic income proposals in light of
ILO standards: Key issues and global costing. Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3208737

23
Platform Cooperativism Consortium. (2022). Data Cooperatives – Presenting Results from the PCC/BKC
Research Sprint | #TheNewCommonSense [Video]. YouTube.

Porter, K., Mitchell, J., Grace, M., Shinosky, S., & Gordon, V. (2012). A Study of the Effects of Social
Media Use and Addiction on Relationship Satisfaction. Chapman University.

Ronfeldt, D. (1996). Tribes, institutions, markets, networks: A framework about societal evolution. RAND
Corporation.

Sagarra, O., Hoffmann, X., Clotet, X., Espelt, R., Calleja-López, A., Rodríguez, J., Balcells, P., Bria, F.,
Aragón, P., Kumar, R., Marras, M., & Laniado, D. (2019). D5.9 Final report on the Barcelona pilots,
evaluations of BarcelonaNow and sustainability plans. In DECODE.

Secretary-General, U. N. Executive Office of the. (2023). A global digital compact — An open, free and
secure digital future for all. In UN-EOSG Policy Briefs and Papers. https://doi.org/10.18356/27082245-28

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin
Press.

Stein, J., Fung, M. L., Bitange, N., & Flynn, S. (2023). Enhancing Global SME Financing through
Prosperity Data Networks: An Integration of Hayek’s and Sen’s Economic Insights in the Digital Age. In
People-Centered Internet.

Szabo, N. (2017). Money, blockchains, and social scalability. Blog.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.
Basic Books.

UNCTAD - UN Trade and Development. (2024, July 10). Digital Economy Report 2024.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2024). Digital public infrastructure.

UNStats. (2023). (TA1.02) Data Cooperatives: A Real-World Roadmap for Social Impact [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGu_0rwkEcI

Verma, P., Tiku, N., & De Vynck, G. (2023, November 22). Sam Altman reinstated as OpenAI CEO with
new board members.The Washington Post.

Walz, A., & Firth-Butterfield, K. (2019). Implementing ethics into artificial intelligence: A contribution, from
a legal perspective, to the development of an AI governance regime. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 18, 176.

Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684),
440-442.

Wells, I., & Rhoden-Paul, A. (2024, August 17). X suspends business in Brazil over censorship row.

24