SHAREFUL, lovely lending
This is an informative article about the edges of implementing the Shareful model. See a more direct application of Shareful at the Offer page, where it is embebed as a one more offering option along the other two other offering possibilities of gifting and exchange.
Note: This article is mostly a review of limitations and documentation of possibilities of the perspective of implementating Shareful in the perspective of owners adding clauses to the offers, (See the other more advanced way in the chapter 2 here below).
This deepening in the Shareful model is a good example case for seeing the how much all scopes of life are depending of each other. More directly speaking, when getting deeply into developing of loveliness at any specific scope of life, we will need relating and entangling it with other lovely actions from the other scopes…Any lovely deepening asks for stop digging for entangling instead.
1. Limitations on Sharefulness
Indefinability and ultimate impossibility of the justification of property (and authority)
For this shareful model, we are not going to judge how the property rights over a thing have been acquired nor what are the fundamentals of authority (where property law relies on). We will also limitate the sharing to what is already considered legal to be shared, without disputing whether that law is fair or unfair. See the freed model instead for further tweaks into this issue of waiving property rights.
MacroPerspective: Economy relativity with Politics (and sociology with psychology)
| POLITICAL | ECONOMICAL | |
| CENTRALISED | Liberal | Socialist |
| DECENTRALISED | Socialist | Liberal |
At a broad level, socialist economy models are based in the centralization of resources allocation. In easy words: The state collects the most things and decides how them are going to be shared among the people. In the side of things, liberal models focus in the decentralization of economy, everyone doing more freely what they want with their things. Nevertheless, both of them are incomplete and need a bit of the other at some points (see table and picture above). Socialist models should offer a bottom up way for people doing their own communes from the smaller level and also liberal models should allow people making their own sharing resources pools. So with the shareful model we are going to focus in designing the bottom up – micro way of sharing things, which both communist and liberal models need and don’t specify much.
Shareful consumerism of ecological and crafted things is something very lovely to promote worrilessly
Sharing as middling centroid of Gifting and Exchange
The smaller side or bottom up economy is found at how we let others accesing our things. At lending, the rights over the thing are maintained but partly given in exchange of some inmaterial compliance.
Every offering suits a short term need, but it is also framed within an offeror mid-long term strategy
Giving, lending and exchanging are the three main childs of offering, that are directly relative to each other. When we think about exchanging, the vibration-pressure of (rather..) lending or giving it instead of exchanging is somewhat there.
| Ask for Exchange | ||
| Inmaterial | Material | |
| Gift | No | No |
| Lend | Yes | No |
| Exchange | Yes | Yes |
Depending how i am (economically), i will lend more or less
One will be more or less open to lending depending how much (s)he can afford not to «rather» exchange it (rent or sell it) because of an actual or future lack of that andor overall resources (See also: Trust relativity chapter below). Everytime we offer to loan or gift instead of exchange, we are doubting whether we are acting strategically and adequately well with respect to our forecasts of future shortages of what we are giving off for free. This is also why for many people the loan seems more cumbersome than an exchange, or why we hesitate not to gift and we rather decided to just lend. These tactical decisions are also the explanation for why there are more lovely trade-offs in some exchanges than in some gifts or loans, as well as there are loans that provide more loveliness than some gifts, despite the default linear loveliness ranking of gifting, lending, exchange.
For the lender, a lending is an investment for a short term inmaterial benefit and a mid-long term material one. A borrower doesn’t need to lend to his-her lender afterwards (that will already qualify as an exchange instead), but (s)he will be inmaterially very pressed for that, hence the potential benefit mid-long term for the original borrower.
In a similar side of things, the borrower will tend to overload the inmaterial equivalence pole with his lender in the short term, just because (s)he is freer to have to give the equivalence than if (s)he had to fulfill a material one (exempted at the lending). The recipient of a loan does not necessarily need to show strong thanks in response to match or surpass the equivalence of what (s)he has borrowed, but (s)he will try to reach the line of equivalence to its borrower with the rational values (s)he possesses, i.e. at least show sufficient rational gratitude or make an effort in not being disgusting to him-her, specially because of the received lending (which saved him material effort).
Shareful platform implementation experience
For a lending offer being lovelier, it will be useful to have a kind of CreativeCommons project for physical things. There was not any platform doing this, so Marc and a friend developed a set of generalistic and scalable clauses. A referral platform for sharing clauses ala CC could be easily done, but the shareful theoretical development also needed to be tried to be implemented in some ground to see what will happen to it too.
A few years after Marc with some other people did a website with a minimal module and a theme for a centralised but popular free software platform such as wordpress. We offered people a virtual platform with features that facilitate the description of conditions for lending things. We thought that making that website was going to be enough for people sharing more their things, and that the local shareful platform will get quickly viral and replicated in many other parts, but we later realized that doing such an stand-alone effort didn’t automatically produce what we initially and broadly wanted, beyond the limited financial, marketing and coding resources we had. The main limitations for the shareful website thriving were realising that sharefulness needs to be entangled with – integrate other loveliness models, to be the very effective lovely practice he wants it to be, which made him focus in further specifying them instead of putting more focus and effort in the localshareful website or its replication (which is a task he likes it more too).
Material Sharing relativity with Inmaterial Trusting
| INMATERIAL | MATERIAL |
| Personal Soul | Freed Gift |
| Local Trust | Shareful Lending |
| Social Freedom | Swaped Exchange |
It doesn’t matter how flashy or full is a platform that let anyone to choose conditions for sharing more securely something. When we think on lending, we want the lending to be meaningful for us, which basically means to increase the satisfaction that we get when trusting succesfully.
Beyond one potential lender knowing more or less his/her borrower and the material usefulness of our offer to him/her, we like to lend things as a test for improve how we deal with the inmaterial trusting in relationships general, otherwise we will rather prefer offering it as a gift or as an exchange. Lending keeps us attached to the thing and to the borrowers, with the thing being an important part of us which is relying in someone else caring it, and we use that as a test for seeing how they (the borrowers and people in general) care about us.
People will normally appeal to don’t trust to lend anything to other unknown in case «they will not bring it back safe after borrowing them», but more in fact what they more care about is «i want to lend it to anyone that would love me a bit more because of that», with the former example to be a superficial case of this. If I lend it and i don’t directly gift it, it’s because i want to keep loving it closely. I loved it and that’s why i kept it up to now, i want to keep loving it and i also want to magnify that relationship through you feeling similar to me with it. I want to love life more after lending it and more specially, i want to love myself and life meanwhile you use it.
2. Actual development scope: Clauses suggested to requesters
«Depending on who it is, I would lend with some specific conditions»
Conditions for lending can be suggested by the:
1 Offeror (chooses within a clauses set, see it below, the rest of this article complement those)
2 Requester (to be developed, for offerors worrying less about choosing which clauses for who)
An improved relationship is the objective of any lending. So, if we can have a good relationship analisys between a possible lender and a borrower, then it’s better to suggest custom conditions (an inteligent request message) for the borrower to the lender, instead of proposing the lender choosing some set of universalized clauses.
Universal conditions can be a good tree to rely on, but they will tend and so need to be very custom depending on the (potential) trust relationship between both parties. Saying this same thing in a different way: Sure more clauses will make lenders more confident, but many of them will like to apply some to some people and additional ones to others. If they decide to add all clauses (for later informally waiving some if the requester is more trustful for them) they will also feel they are publickly being too picky, so they will feel creating a bad reputation for themselves, being untrustworthy, over paranoid, stingy… regardless of factually being factually less materialistic than someone else that doesn’t lend and only wants to exchange.
We aim for the scheme of clauses proposed a priori to be useful for a simplified first implementation focused on the action of «the offeror puts his-her conditions and waits to be contacted by requesters». For future developments, beyond more glitter for that trend, we should focus more on the clauses recommendation for the requester depending on his-her current and potential relationship with the offeror.
When analyzing the relationship and potential relationship that a requester has, the clauses can be proposed to the requester, instead of «only» to the offeror. Thus, the clauses would be found first by the requester, and so the offeror would not need to worry about having to think about what restrictions to start putting. The requester would propose those recommended clauses (or others that she would like to add to the suggested ones), with which she would have more options for use.
Suggestion of request messages for borrowing
We can develop analogies between the clauses with certain psychological archetypes, request messages can be suggested to the requester, so that with them he can more easily convince the offeror to lend him the thing he offers.
3. Licensing limitations
Licenses are texts that we propose to formalize the use conditions in the offering of things. They are composed of a base (core) text, options (clauses) and additional information that can be freely added because licenses should be understood as different aesthetics of an invitation, which at any moment can be updated through an informal conversation between the parties involved.
Licenses are mandatory for lending, but they are also useful for gifts and exchanges because they enrich them. Gifts can be offered with conditions, all loans are offered with conditions and exchanges can also be offered with conditions.
There they have implemented the offer but only of things, not services
In this group we share everything, in the other group we only share a few things
In the Terms of use of that community is stated that you can decide not answering to any requester. Besides this, answering and adding clauses gives you points in a chain…
Types of formalities
By combining different areas of formalization, final licenses can be simplified. The platform design itself is an aid for simplifying final licenses. I.e.
Promoters: Authorship of the «Terms of use» and authority over the platform core data (The last autorithy to be shared or less in any offer, even an i.e. p2p software)
Terms of use: Legal version of the «Conditions of Use»
Conditions of use and Disclaimers: Introductory information for avoiding possible misunderstandings and Informal version about overall procedure of use (See a demonstration in a chapter below)
Base license: License information included in all licenses
Clause: Formal license option predetermined by the platform and selected by offeror
Clause remarks: Additional informal information about the clause
Additional information: Other binding and non bonding conditions added freely
Comments: Nuances and updates of the offer
Profile information: Data in the profile, that can also be explicitly referenced
Additional private information: Additional information given privately
License: Formal-binding conditions for the offer: Base license + Clauses + Additional information
Version of licenses: About the actual license relation with possible old versions of the license
Mode (aesthetic) of license: i.e. Legal (directly judiciary binding), Formal (platform default licensing), Additional information (In)formality…
Wishes: Non binding conditions on the offer (See more below)
Binding conditions
In the first implementation we offered 12 clauses (out of a total of 20 exposed here in this document), and a very short base license text only for «clauseless lending» which was:
«Leave the thing as it is you found it»
These are the minimal implicit conditions (apart from those recognized by the unwaiable conventional law) that the offeror expresses. But neither our basic license nor the clauses, no matter how much we developed them, nor what the conventional law predisposed will ever be specific enough to fully facilitate or transparently face all aspects of a lending relationship. These are some of these impossible questions to reply very accurately:
1-Give attribution to the lender (To each one that sees me with the jacket you lend me?)
—Do not transform it (No opinion?)
—Don’t tell anyone (Do not let it be seen?)
2-Non-commercial: Can’t i use the thing to enhance any accesory exchanges (or exchanges with euros?)
3-Do not modify it (Do not touch it…?)
These are not new news either. These are clauses that are standarized in the CreativeCommons project. Despite CC only or mostly applies to digital things (not scarce by design), they also have to cope with these undefineabilities. Other ones are:
–The offeror can cancel any condition at any time (Maintains all the authority that is supposed to reduce by the lending offer, so there is always a potential risk-trap in the lending for the borrower…)
–Leave it as you found it (My hands sweat, every moment is unique…)
–Delivery of contact information (How intrusive could the borrower be?)
–Compensation for accidental damages as far as possible (Lend what’s going to break soon? Unappliable standard for a thing lifetime)
–Proposed methods for the resolution of disputes (Semantic ambiguities in the UN human rights declaration?)
–Propagation of additionally attached wishes (are they really non-binding at all?)
-…
Clauses
The clauses are the specific set of optional binding conditions that we make available to advertisers of lending offers. The clauses open up possible agreements for a more and more creative relations. We don’t pretend this proposed formalization to act as constraints or being an obstacle for offering itself, but rather an incentive and even an endorsement for that. As developers, we could have chosen to offer you more clauses, or other more restrictive or permissive or long clauses, but we chose to standardize them because we believe that they represent with simplicity the depth of the values we want to represent and promote. We could even think on rewarding the (curated) adding of clauses, because it is an action that represents a part of a higher culture of care we more broadly want to incentivate.
It is also very true that at each culture or for each type of thing there will be a set of clauses more appropriate than another to suggest, but that does not mean that we can’t recognize some scales of common lacks of confidence that the licenses could help us to overcome. These proposed set of clauses for licenses can be extended, minimized or be completely rephrased, but surely there will also be statistics of their use, which somehow will represent its universality a posteriori anyway maybe.
| Conditions of Use (example) To be able to post offers, you must accept the Terms of Use, verify your email and read and undertand this document. Once these things are done, you can publish offers and you will have a mailbox on the web where other users can send you private messages (for you being able to not revealing your contact email or other information). Anyway, if you prefer, you can also specify other contact routes in your profile other than by private message (contact phone, Facebook profile or other website, other ways to contact you in person, …). As you post things and interact with others you will build your reputation as a user on the web. This can help you build trust with other offerors when you contact them as a requester. Disclaimer We always have a part of responsibility to take care of when trusting someone, but we should not think that distrust is always the best option because it also isolates us. You are not obliged to lend anything to anyone with whom you do not feel, nor you have to expect an additional alliance or special thanks from the person to whom you lend the thing. Your thing will have a natural deterioration when used by others. You can ask to contribute the part of this equity (through adding an additional clause) if this issue worries you. There could be misunderstandings, exaggerations and inaccuracies in the communication with others. Express them where you see them as a potential conflict, the earlier the better. Accidents can also occur and if the borrower is keen to compensate you for those, you should not make the accident a problem for you and less for him/her. We bet for disuassion of conflicts through the increasing of positive value of the common platform. We hope to fill the platform with enough things so that people who want to cause problems will know that when we catch her-him (s)he will lose the possibility of using things later. Publication and canceling We offer optional conditions for the offerors describe how they offer the access to their things (clauses), that the user can ignore and even overwrite. In the event that there is a contradiction between the option chosen and the additional information added by the user (either textua, oral or else), what the user has said will prevail. With the optional conditions that we recommend you use, we want to make your offer more transparent, thus this way the offeror and the requester are better protected. Do not be afraid to specify very specific conditions if they give you more peace of mind when publishing an offer. You can also formally or specifically adapt special conditions to specific applicants that arise during the negotiation of a loan. And also of course, you can have published many conditions and then tell the applicant privately that some of them do not need to be complied with. You can start offer things that you love much as exchanges and other cheap things to lend or give with or without conditions, or simply assume that you can not share it yet because you do not feel ready for it, even if you initially published it as a loan or gift. Go lending and giving more to the extent of your emotional, rational and material possibilities. Transfers of use When you (the requester) are looking for something, read the conditions of the offer, contact the offeror, comment him-her that you are going to use the thing for the agreed time, take the thing and return the thing as agreed. When contacting a offeror, the offerorr is not obliged to respond or end up sharing the thing, nor the requester has right to publickly denounce the offeror for it. The offering system offers other ways for having updated information there. The offeror can also ask for as much personal contact information to the requester as (s)he wants. The conversation about the identity authentication data needed by the offeror before the delivery of the item can be extended as much as the offeror wants, leaving space for the applicant’s complaint if the bidder is not proactive in wanting to check it, if he is continuing asking for more contact data. The conversation about the guarantees of compliance with the conditions or the instructions for use can be extended as much as the offeror wants, with the offeror keeping the right not to share the thing even if the requester a priori meets the conditions and demonstrates reasonable use capacity of the thing. In the case of the offeror publickly changing the conditions after having lend and while the loan still takes place, without having notified it either private or publickly to the requester, and (s)he willing to complain about the borrower because of that, the system could provide to the requester the exact time of the change of conditions for his-her own defense about it. We also consider these actions to take against non-compliant offerors: -Receive communications about offerors that don’t respond to messages and keep a private file with these sort of complaints, and if the situation continues to be repeated, contact the offeror and freeze andor cancel his-her account. Dispute resolution Complain and try to solve it privately Make a negative comment on the user’s profile (see also and help yourself with the Owntrust app) Contact the mediato |
Conditions of Use (example)
To be able to post offers, you must accept the Terms of Use, verify your email and read and undertand this document. Once these things are done, you can publish offers and you will have a mailbox on the web where other users can send you private messages (for you being able to not revealing your contact email or other information). Anyway, if you prefer, you can also specify other contact routes in your profile other than by private message (contact phone, Facebook profile or other website, other ways to contact you in person, …).
As you post things and interact with others you will build your reputation as a user on the web. This can help you build trust with other offerors when you contact them as a requester.
Disclaimer
IWe always have a part of responsibility to take care of when trusting someone, but we should not think that distrust is always the best option because it also isolates us.
You are not obliged to lend anything to anyone with whom you do not feel, nor you have to expect an additional alliance or special thanks from the person to whom you lend the thing. Your thing will have a natural deterioration when used by others.
You can ask to contribute the part of this equity (through adding an additional clause) if this issue worries you.
There could be misunderstandings, exaggerations and inaccuracies in the communication with others. Express them where you see them as a potential conflict, the earlier the better. Accidents can also occur and if the borrower is keen to compensate you for those, you should not make the accident a problem for you and less for him/her.
We bet for disuassion of conflicts through the increasing of positive value of the common platform. We hope to fill the platform with enough things so that people who want to cause problems will know that when we catch her-him (s)he will lose the possibility of using things later.
Publication and canceling
We offer optional conditions for the offerors describe how they offer the access to their things (clauses), that the user can ignore and even overwrite. In the event that there is a contradiction between the option chosen and the additional information added by the user (either textua, oral or else), what the user has said will prevail.
With the optional conditions that we recommend you use, we want to make your offer more transparent, thus this way the offeror and the requester are better protected.
Do not be afraid to specify very specific conditions if they give you more peace of mind when publishing an offer. You can also formally or specifically adapt special conditions to specific applicants that arise during the negotiation of a loan. And also of course, you can have published many conditions and then tell the applicant privately that some of them do not need to be complied with.
You can start offer things that you love much as exchanges and other cheap things to lend or give with or without conditions, or simply assume that you can not share it yet because you do not feel ready for it, even if you initially published it as a loan or gift. Go lending and giving more to the extent of your emotional, rational and material possibilities.
Transfers of use
When you (the requester) are looking for something, read the conditions of the offer, contact the offeror, comment him-her that you are going to use the thing for the agreed time, take the thing and return the thing as agreed.
When contacting a offeror, the offerorr is not obliged to respond or end up sharing the thing, nor the requester has right to publickly denounce the offeror for it. The offering system offers other ways for having updated information there.
The offeror can also ask for as much personal contact information to the requester as (s)he wants. The conversation about the identity authentication data needed by the offeror before the delivery of the item can be extended as much as the offeror wants, leaving space for the applicant’s complaint if the bidder is not proactive in wanting to check it, if he is continuing asking for more contact data.
The conversation about the guarantees of compliance with the conditions or the instructions for use can be extended as much as the offeror wants, with the offeror keeping the right not to share the thing even if the requester a priori meets the conditions and demonstrates reasonable use capacity of the thing.
In the case of the offeror publickly changing the conditions after having lend and while the loan still takes place, without having notified it either private or publickly to the requester, and (s)he willing to complain about the borrower because of that, the system could provide to the requester the exact time of the change of conditions for his-her own defense about it.
We also consider these actions to take against non-compliant offerors:
-Receive communications about offerors that don’t respond to messages and keep a private file with these sort of complaints, and if the situation continues to be repeated, contact the offeror and freeze andor cancel his-her account.
Dispute resolution
Complain and try to solve it privately
Make a negative comment on the user’s profile (see also Owntrust)
Contact the mediators
Additional information
Additional information is public or private formal (binding andor just explanatory) information included in the license added beyond the clauses or the base license. For a platform, we propose these types:
-Nuances: More specific information about some of the selected clauses
–Tips or instructions for use: Necessary if the thing is potentially «dangerous» due to its capacities or fragile or deteriorated status
-Functional contribution: Small material or immaterial contribution to be able use the thing
30 Euros of petrol (to go to Madrid)
Free price to cover expenses
-Stock or Maximum time of use: Total, per session or per person
2 washing machines per week, different people
3 free places to go to Madrid
The one who has least used it has preference
-Stories: Historical narrative associated with the thing
It was from my dear father
This ball was touched by Messi
There are already 50 former borrowers of it…
See more: Worthing
Conditions vs Non binding conditions
Who appreciates as much or more a nonbinding wish than a binding clause… lives more abundantly?
Clauses (or conditions) have the power to be used in front of the community or the conventional authority to report an use abuse, which would entail its judicialization and adequate compensation. One could use first the community resolutive tools andor directly go through the conventional authorities (police, judge, etc) where the offer information created in the platform will help for providing more ground for such an abuse claim there.
Wishes, on the other hand, cannot be used as binding conditions of the contract-license and, if they were, the community reporter would automatically become denounced by the community instead. The violation of a wish (not expressed as a condition-clause) entails only a «karmic» compensation that, once again, cannot be used to report a communitarian or legal abuse.
Examples of karmic penalties could be from hard extracommunitarian revenges (which should be communitarily punished after knowing those) up to the easy reaction of someone who has felt that his wish has not been respected to choose not to return to lend the thing to which (s)he consider abuser of her-his wish. In this case, the alleged wish abuser cannot report an abuse (falsification of the offer) by the offeror, (s)he can only rather appease his frustration or expect compensation with the feeling that:
The same karma to which the offeror appeals so strongly, will turn against her-him for being such a cheater or radical with me. I am going to send a message to the mediators of the platform to take her-his unsocial action into account and I will also explain the situation to my friends in private so they do not lend anything to that offeror either …
We are worth entering into this unsolvable binding/not-binding dilemma because through incentivating the expression of wishes attached to thing it is demonstrated that the more binding or non binding law is still dynamic and any of both could as hard as the other. Increasing the reliance on non-binding wishes is what more can decentralize law itself, showing the higher dynamism that any human relation has.
Wishes examples
If you fix some flaw, great
I want it to bring peace in the world
Please do laugh with it
…
Challenges:
- Suggestions to post wishes attached to things and other types of contents (Attach «Main wishes» or «Habits», syndicated in profile and exportable to contents and third parties
- Consider stories as wishes (extended and indirect wishes)
- Relationship matches through wishes
4. Shareful clauses (explained)
| ATITUDE :
ASPECT: | Traditional | Conservative | Liberal | Progresist | Libertarian |
| Destination | close | near | known | granted | anyone |
| Purposes | common | approved | beneficial | improvement | anything |
| Giving | contribution | lend me | lend | re-lend | comment |
| Time / Space | use it with me | use it where it is | back after use | back on request | keep it |
5. Extending Sharefulness
5.1 Clauses explanations – remarks
5.2 Extended subclauses
5.2. Other categories of basic clauses. See some (old documents) at: wow.wiki.yt/en/Shareful (way back machine) andor download these spreadsheet: shareful flove, clauses sources
5.3. Common clauses for all things (i.e. information at user profiles, etc)
5.3.1. Clause it by a Preferred dispute resolution i.e. Prefer dealing – lending with who…
| More | Less | |
| Past | Current | Future |
| Experience | Use | Offer |
| Similar | Different | |
| Offers | Things | Relations |
5.4. Extended (sub)clauses
| ATITUDE :
ASPECT: | Traditional | Conservative | Liberal | Progresista | Libertarian |
| Destinatarias | close | near | known | granted | anyone |
| asociates | equivalent | ||||
| that are | |||||
| that behave | |||||
| thematic | |||||
| Purposes | common | aproved | beneficial | improvement | anything |
| see profile | |||||
| Giving | contribution | lend me | lend | re-lend | comment |
| at canceling | much | equivalent | symbolic | in web | |
| total | patrimonial | with foto | |||
| contact+ | |||||
| buy it in x time | |||||
| Time / Space | use with me | use where it is | back after use | back on request | Keep it |
| chat me |
5.5 Clauses extended through analogies
The way we behave with things says things about the way we are and vice versa
We can draw further analogies to the clauses with other sets of 5 (and else…). For example: Attitudes to the Aspects one, so this way we further humanize the lending intention. I.e. Vertical (body) and horizontal rows (soul), that will somewaht tell about our personality:
You are quite Mari Puri and you tend to Uxía… See how much Encarna you are.
| ATITUDE :
ASPECT: | Autoritarian
Cram | Conservative
MariPuri | Liberal
Juanito | Interested
Uxia | Libertarian
Encarna |
| Destination
MariPuri | close | near | known | granted | anyone |
| Purposes
Juanito | common | approved | beneficial | improvement | anything |
| Giving
Uxia | contribution | lend me | lend | re-lend | comment |
| Time / Space
Encarna | use it with me | use it where it is | back after use | back on request | keep it |
Defaults: You tend to share with Mari Puri’s soul in Juanito’s body
- Diagonal (where body matches with soul) as the default for all. i.e.
For near and beneficial purposes that re-lend and keep it
- The middled one (clauses proposed by Juanito): i.e.
For known with benefitial purposes who also lend and return it after use.
5.5.1 Further analogies with other lists with categories of 2, 3, 4 and 5
5.6. Automation of acceptance
5.6.1. Access by pre-established confidence
In this network, they say that grandparents and mothers share everything with their children (See more: MyFamily)
5.6.2. Access by previous acceptance
Press a button that allows you to use the thing without having to ask for more permission (See more: Slock.it)
5.6.3. Universal sytemic access (Uthopy?)
We give everything to the NOS user because (s)he has everything. Everything is shareable, for now there are few hours to do in the factories needed for everyone to use anything. Anyone rarely has to wait for something to use something. See more: Venus Project (Zeitgeist)
5.7. Local shareful: An extended guide to make a sharing space with close or near people. Try it also with this this test
5.8. Institutional integration
See more at offer