Nathan Schneider presents preliminary research, drawn from a forthcoming book, that treats protocols as a political order requiring its own set of civic virtues, analyzing text from 'The Protocol Reader' and 'For Protocols' (a mix of LLM-assisted and manual coding of 73 candidate terms) to find that adaptability, tension management, accessibility, temporal awareness, and design emerge as the most frequent and central virtues. He argues protocol societies uniquely demand tolerance for tension and co-design participation (rather than top-down implementation), and closes by questioning how such virtues get inculcated—pointing to practices like protocol fiction, protocol watching, and symposium pedagogy itself as mechanisms, while cautioning against uncritically embedding incentive-alignment as a default virtue.
Shared by the speakers for the symposium. Email addresses have been removed.
Transcript
YouTube’s automatic captions, unedited, so names and technical terms are often misheard. Each timestamp opens the video at that moment.
0:00 Yeah, that that recording will be up. Um, I’m hoping to get through and edit them tomorrow. So, they should be up shortly and and tags everybody will have their recording from their session and people can catch up or share or whatnot. Um, we’ve got more ideas for that that we’ll share this afternoon, but I’ve already stolen 2 minutes of Nathan’s time. So, um, yeah, I’ve done my spiel a couple times already. So, welcome to the protocol symposium. It’s day five and Nathan’s going to kick us off with with his talk.
0:29 All right, thank you. And just logistically we’re looking at um, the total time is until 9:30 or until the half hour, is that right?
0:38 Okay, good. Well, um, thank you so much um, Timber and and all those who put work into organizing this. Um, I’m I’ve been catching as much as I can in the middle of a um, busy teaching week of this semester, but um, I will be catching up more. This is what I’ve heard so far has just been amazing. Um, so, um, I’m really grateful for the chance to offer a little bit of research I’ve been working on, you know, a tiny little drop here. Um, I’ll just say, oh, um, sharing’s not turned on. Can you give me the sharing credits?
1:15 one sec. Um, can you request to share? That would be the easiest way for me to turn it on. Yeah, there you go.
1:24 Okay, great. Um, I’m Nathan Schneider. I’m a professor of media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and um, uh, I direct a uh, lab called the Media Economies Design Lab. Um, we’ve been doing a lot of stuff around protocols. Um, I’m finishing up a a book on on protocols as a kind of political uh, and social theory. I’m very much inspired by the the work of this community. So, I’m really grateful for the chance to uh, to share here. Um, another thing that has just kind of swept me up is I’ve become as one does in 2026, the founder of a of a AI startup. Um, so I’ve been building out of Metagov, an organization I and some others here are part of a an attempt to to explore what it looks like to have community governed AI. So right now we’re we have chat and API access to private models and renewable energy models and whatever else the members want to do. So if you’re interested in that kind of social experiment, come join us.
2:38 Um, in the meantime, we’ll talk about the kinds of virtues that we might want in this kind of space. Um, so let’s get going. This is by the way a little piece of research that is like a few paragraphs in the book I’m working on and is a longer paper for a special issue, but it’s really just a small contribution and attempt to kind of give back to this community and it’s it’s in some respects as you’ll see a study of the work of this community.
3:11 So a kind of basic premise of this project is that um, following the language of Venkat and others about the idea of protocols as as potentially first-class concepts. I’m interested in what it might mean for a a society more grounded in protocols to be on the rise and and even to imagine and recognize ways in which the fate of our current world depends on on protocols. Um, and we can see this emerging and I talk about this as a kind of protocol society that’s kind of emerging from a lot of different directions with a lot of different language and and and culture behind it but with some common patterns. And and these are include for instance decolonial movements that are looking beyond the state and corporations and other forms of organization like that to and and often using the language of protocol to talk about ancestral governance legacies, practices, ritual, um ecological stewardship and so forth that are not encoded in law but are at least in the kind of nation-state law but are are cultural practices and and and norms that take other forms.
4:37 Um and then we can see also protocolization in climate accords ranging from the the the kind of formal accords among nation-states to other kinds of agreements like standards among you know corporate actors or technical standards that involve emissions and environmental stewardship. Um and and internet standards from good old TCP/IP to the kinds of standards that are starting to get involved in governing the behavior of artificial intelligence and agents. And you know when we see agents running amok across the internet it starts to become very clear as many in this community are aware that the protocols that we establish may be the difference between whether we’re able to survive the the rise of this new form of intelligence.
5:33 Um the question that I’m asking in this context is what does it take to do protocol politics well? If if protocols matter and if they are becoming an ever more important medium of of um through which power flows, um, what are, what do we expect of each other as participants in this kind of, um, world? And and a further premise, uh, of this discussion is that political regimes of any kind promote particular virtues. Um, so this is, um, something that we find in, um, in, going back to the earliest writings we have, the earliest evidence we have of, of political systems in above, but they seek to, um, instill virtues in the, in the, um, population uh, that the re, who are wrapped up in the regime. So, I, I suspect that these kinds of virtues, these modes of behavior and being, um, help smooth the hard edges of power structures, you know, they, they allow people to kind of, um, work around some of the hard limits of, uh, of, of rigid structures. Um, they coordinate and align political behavior in ways that, um, just structure and and raw power itself can’t always do, um, and provide a common language for political life. Uh, so people, uh, kind of can understand each other. You know, so so virtues are in themselves a a kind of protocol, um, for, for, uh, for political, um, for political life.
7:14 And if we consider in kind of broad strokes various forms of political regimes that we’ve had, um, in our world and that we have around us, each has more or less, with lots of variation within, um, a set of pro, set of, uh, virtues that they expect of, uh, of people. So, you know, if you’re a monarchist, um, you know, you expect a sort of certain sort of restraint and propriety of the monarch and and maybe there’s also a sense of loyalty or fealty among the people. If you’re in a capitalist order, you know, individualism and thrift might might be really valuable and and competitiveness is is actually welcomed because it serves a certain social function. Whereas, for instance, if you’re in a in a certain kind of socialist order, maybe the competitiveness is not the kind of virtue that you would want to see you would want to stimulate solidarity and unity and this sort of thing. So, you get the idea.
8:17 This this assumes that any kind of political order involves a certain set of virtues. And, you know, maybe it’s too simple to say protocols are themselves a political order. But, just for the sake of this argument, let’s let’s explore what that might mean. What virtues might make sense for a protocol society? Would it be things from this list? Would it be Would it look like any of these particular sets or would it be something different? So, in order to answer this question, at least in a really preliminary way, I took a couple of books that both came out in 2025. One, of course, from this community. The protocol reader as well as as for protocols, which was developed out of out of an art exhibition and series of events [snorts] run out of the Vera List Institute at The New School.
9:19 And, both of these were works at about the same time that explored protocols as a form of kind of social design. And, they’re both multi-author books.
9:31 So, they they they draw from various perspectives. And, so I think they’re useful source material for um for imagining what kinds of preliminary virtues seem to be discussed currently among people who are already thinking about reordering society more along the lines of protocol. So I um initially I’ve been doing a lot of experimenting very kind of timidly with like AI agents and this sort of thing and then often what happens is I try something and then I get really freaked out by by what happens and then I roll it back a little bit. Something like that happened here. I initially did a LLM supported generation of terms based on based on reviewing these texts through private models. Then I did a manual review feeling that the LLM generation was really poor and ended up basically drawing about half and half from each. So the the ultimate list involved 37 from the LLM generation and 36 from from the from manual review.
10:49 Um Okay and the result was a whole bunch of virtues which you know were summarized again by both me and the and the models. So the the terms you know you can kind of take your leave in some respects. I also in the paper have definitions for each just because I did a manual review kind of coding through different passages and and so I had certain implicit definitions in my mind as I did that and I made those explicit as well. So so I can you know the paper is in the folder and so you can see what those definitions are if you want to understand what these mean. And here we have a pretty interesting curve here for the frequency analysis and and, you know, the outlier is adaptability. I’m not sure how easily you can see that, but the big the big line on the left is is adaptability. That is the major theme that came up in in mentions of virtues across both of these books. Um, uh, tension management comes after. I know tensions has been a really important concept in the Protocol Institute discussions. Um, accessibility, which has many different meanings. It’s not just the kind of like ADA compliance kind of logic, but it’s really about like can can people understand this? Are they able to participate? Are they able to um, to to kind of grok it? Um, temporal awareness was really interesting, especially given the discussions here about memory.
12:28 Um, that that a sense of where things came from and where things are going um, is an important component here. Design and then and agency came in. And I think design is really interesting, um, you know, as well. So, uh, I did, you know, a few little, um, uh, uh, uh, data analysis, um, tricks here to explore different ways of seeing, um, some of the, um, some of the the ways in which these appear. So, frequency, how many times did it appear? Um, and then centrality, like how how densely networked is each of these terms? And I I found both of those, um, approaches to be useful and revealing in some respects. The lists are similar, but not exactly the same, uh, and they they wind up with, uh, uh, I took the top 10 of each of those just arbitrarily and then synthesize those into a a slightly longer list.
13:30 Um but um but at the top in both cases is adaptability, design figures really highly, um temporal awareness again. Okay, so a few observations. Um so in many respects the the this list, while not totally dissimilar from other regimes, is is a quite distinct sort of sort of list. Um the emphasis on adaptability and tension um strikes me as really interesting. Um and and my hypothesis about why this seems to matter is that um protocols run the risk often of being especially rigid and hard to change. And so that kind of requires the humans participating in protocolized life to be particularly adaptable and and to be willing to tolerate tension. Um and I think that’s a really interesting uh observation. Um there are other regimes, for instance, that are not good at tolerating tension, you know, that are that are very top-down, that are very designed around resolving tension, and inhabiting a world in which tension is is minimized. Um uh whereas, for instance, democratic regimes might might emphasize tension.
14:43 Design I also thought was really interesting um in that it’s not commonly a political virtue in many regimes um because the assumption is that the political order is already designed and your job is to just implement it. Um and so I thought this was a really interesting pattern uh to see come up, that there was an expectation that participants are also co-designers um of these of these systems. Um finally, I I you know, think a a kind of further corollary of the some of the earlier um uh assumptions is the recognition that there are particular techniques used to inculcate virtues, like, you know, compulsory schooling is a form of pedagogy designed around industrial, you know, liberal democracy. You know, you need to get people up to a certain level of knowledge about the world, so you inculcate this kind of institution. You know, in some respects, the very symposium we’re at right now is a form of virtue pedagogy perhaps for protocols, but also I think we see that in the practices of protocol art, protocol fiction, and and protocol watching, which are are all practices that this community has has helped to to develop. And I think it’s interesting to observe them not only as like exploratory practices, but actually as pedagogical practices, forms in which means by which people are inculcating the virtues of protocolized life among one another.
16:11 Um so I just invite you, you know, this is a very preliminary study. I hope it’s useful. Here’s some, you know, slop for you. Um and and I I just invite you to to ask what what virtues your protocols depend on. Where do you see virtues lurking around or presumed virtues lurking around the the the specific designs of protocols. Um I hope this provocation is interesting. Um I, you know, I’ve shared the preprint for the paper again in the folder. Please check it out and and hopefully the actual article will be coming out relatively soon and and the the larger book will be probably another year. Um thank you so much. I’ll leave it there.
16:59 Thank you, Nathan. Yeah, if people have questions, go ahead and, you know, use the hand raise icon and then go for it. Yeah, Errol.
17:11 Hi. Um thank you for the talk. I I a question regarding adaptability because there is like a time dimension like at what pace does it those protocols need to adapt? So, have you looked into that dimension?
17:28 Um so, the I I think the you know, I’m here I’m looking for very very vague traces of what kind of broad I should say not vague but broad um themes. And so, the the ways in which people talk about adaptability in each context in the the passages I was drawing from vary a lot, right? So, so um uh so, in some cases they’re thinking about protocols that are not you know, designed not to be adaptable, some that are designed to be you know, highly uh evolving and and dynamic. And and and that is actually a a major theme of of the book I’m working on now which um one of the major uh explorations of it is the difference between formalized, you know, very rigid often protocols or at least institutionally defined protocols and ones that are um what I think of as vernacular and much more dynamic and fluid. Um and so, there’s so much to explore about this question but it for the purposes of this particular study, I was just observing ways in which authors talking about protocols are are noting that adaptability is a you know, in in different kinds of context seems to be really important.
18:54 Yeah, Charles mentions institutional versus vernacular. I’m now leaning toward the distinction of formal versus vernacular um but I’m I’m eager for um feedback on that um because institu- the word institution just like gives people like economists and sociologists the creeps because it has such a broad definition in that context in those context. Um So, um Federico’s asking about instilling virtues um in AI agents and I think that’s a great question. You know, I I um just had a you know, a guest speaker and collaborator in my class yesterday who was talking about how he has kind of at the bottom level of of his agentic setup, you know, the virtue list. And And actually, he was he was a startup founder and his his company also had a a virtue list that was really core to their They were often rated one of the best places to work in the country and um he really credited that to the naming of of virtues, of particular values and principles for the culture. And um And it was interesting to see him transfer that practice to to his kind of agentic workflows. Um I saw Mike next and then and then Eric.
20:14 Um yeah, uh a great talk. Um so, I’m I’m giving a talk later today on uh forgiveness as a as a as a protocol virtue. Um and you know, not to give too much Well, and and basic basically, I think the basic idea is is that uh is that you know, protocols that hum that humans interact with can’t be too hard or rigid because humans aren’t. There has to be some kind of slack or exception handling or meta protocols to deal with special cases in there. So, I I I I I just wonder if if that if that’s one of your virtues or what how that fits into your general theory.
20:56 Yeah, thank you. I I I love that and I can’t wait for your talk. That sounds It sounds amazing. I I I mean, it just reminds me how much um I think of like forgiveness virtues in in child-rearing um with in family life just how how like you know, different people I think grow up with a different sense of like what forgiveness they can expect in the world and and it shapes character in really important ways. So I’m I’m really interested in hearing what you have to say. You know, I I I think in some ways that adaptability even is itself you know, could be understood in terms of forgiveness as well as you know, another one of these was tension management as I mentioned you know, that too. I think has a has a sort of quality of forgiveness that if you’re going to assume that tension is going to be a reality that then there is a kind of expectation that there’s there are means of repair. So I think that’s you know, I think you’re going much deeper than my analysis did but I think it you know, I’m I’m looking forward to hearing more to explore the synergies.
22:12 Yeah, so I asked a variant of this question earlier in the symposium but it seems germane here. I’m kind of I welcome your thoughts about the preferred mechanisms for virtues instruction, inculcation. I don’t know what the right word is and I know your faith is pretty important to you and religion is thought to play a pretty darn big role in kind of instructing in virtuous behavior but the techniques that are utilized to do so are often you know, bound up in are they them can they themselves be assessed in virtuous ways? Finally getting my like me to my question generally coercing or manipulating virtuous outcomes is at a minimum not thought to be a good way to instill virtues even if you might get the correct outcome, but that’s grounded in a kind of recognition in voluntary like understanding of a virtuous substrate leading to more virtuous behavior being the basis for a more virtuous social order so to speak, but the more sentient or conscious that an AI agent might one day become, to me does that pose any problems for coercive or manipulative instruction in virtues to those same agents based on the rationale I’ve already spelled out.
23:43 No, that’s that’s really interesting and I think it it also gets into the question of like negative virtues or or kind of you know, which virtues do we actually want and and and are we are we kind of charging headlong into whatever virtues seem to relate to protocol designs or are there certain you know, are there are there choices being made and you know, I would argue the latter. I think it you know, this is a this is a set of virtues that in a lot of ways I think privileges the kind of tech protocol orientation in most respects and you know, for instance one one example of that that you know, I’ve questioned you know, in in some of my previous work on for instance like crypto ecosystems is around the kind of inculcation of a reliance on economic incentives like again that that selfishness as a as a virtue and and alignment of incentives and and like incentive orientation as a kind of fundamental practice is you know, I think is something we should have a discussion about. We shouldn’t assume that this is the only way to design systems or that we should design systems everywhere this way. Um we should be really intentional you know understand that when we’re designing systems that emphasize incentive alignment, we are inculcating virtues around incentive alignment. Um and um and so I think that’s really you know and I think that can be even in the appearance of a non-coercive thing.
25:17 Here is just a protocol. You can use it if you want. There is a kind of there is a kind of inculcation that we need to make be aware that is is happening. Um and I think that really you know I saw that happening a lot in the web 3 environment where people were entering this protocolized environment and uh this ecosystem and were seeming to adopt certain virtues in the process. Um you know in terms of how else to you know to inculcate these and you know what what what we expect I you know I think that’s you know it it touches on questions of legitimacy, right? I think people sometimes are really good at sniffing a you know smelling a rat, noticing when they’re being manipulated and other times they’re not and this is just an attempt to surface that conversation and say you know what you know what do we really want these virtues? Do we really want um you know what do we really need in order to um live well among these systems? I I think um you know for instance Venkat talks about plurality in the chat as being you know the the the um only uniquely protocolized virtue uh uh pluralism um as he puts it um and I think that’s I I I was thinking that too quite a bit um which is one reason why I included here the synthetic list cuz it is the only one it it includes plurality um and and I think that’s it does seem like a really recurrent theme. At the same time, you know there are a lot of people who you know are are really concerned about for instance ideas of relativism and um really worry about the um, the a kind of too much pluralism as a as a way of eroding um, certain things that are important in life. And um, and so, you know, that all of these are kind of up for debate. And uh, you know, I hope this this uh, uh, talk has been a little bit of a provocation to think about, you know, what kind of virtues we we actually want to be um, uh, uh, you know, teaching each other, cuz that’s what we’re doing here.
27:21 Uh, or at least in part. And I guess I’m out of time. So, thank you so so much.
27:26 Thank you, Nathan. I feel like that was a fantastic note to start on today, and I hope that everybody continues to think about that um, throughout the day and over the weekend and in the future of these protocol societies. So, next up we’ve got um, Sam Chua. So,
Amber Case presents the Calm Technology Institute's 81-point certification framework, arguing that human attention operates like a law of nature—distinguishing prefrontal-cortex-demanding 'center' attention from pass-through 'peripheral' attention—and that products (from car buttons to AI interfaces) should be designed and governed accordingly. She traces the framework's lineage to Mark Weiser's 1995 calm technology principles and discusses the legitimacy problem of building certification authority without statutory power, comparing CTI to Underwriter Laboratories and the Good Housekeeping Seal. The session closes with audience discussion, including Venkatesh Rao connecting the talk to Kairos/Chronos time and AI's 'staircase' temporality.
Daniel Kronovet presents 'Chores as Complex Coordination,' introducing 'regenerative labor' as a concept distinct from maintenance or care work, and detailing Chore Wheel, a Slack-based protocol suite (chores, hearts, things) built on Elinor Ostrom's commons-governance principles plus four digital-era additions: no privileged roles, simple inputs, humans-for-sensing/machines-for-bookkeeping, and continuous asynchronous participation. Drawing on his Los Angeles co-living house Sage House as a real-world case study, he argues that separating task definition from task performance (akin to double-entry bookkeeping) allows a fixed, continuously-replenished point economy to turn dish-washing and trash duty into a system of social computation that generates social capital alongside physical upkeep.
Kaliya Young presents her Protocol Institute-funded research on the IETF as a 'group brain' — a durable collective cognition combining a memory substrate (the data tracker, RFC series, mailing lists) with a human 'knowing' culture (rough consensus, birds-of-a-feather sessions, sortition-based leader selection) that together produce capacities no individual member holds. She extends the framework to Wikipedia and DAOs as comparative cases, introduces the concept of a 'group membrane' (who's in/out and how boundaries harden toward power), and argues AI should augment rather than replace human group cognition, positioning group-level alignment as a missing middle between individual and humanity-wide AI alignment debates.