Distributive Equity Through Structure: A Community-Scale Worked Example of Values Stickiness

A body of recent legal scholarship argues that digital platforms exercise a distinct form of power — ecosystem power — operating simultaneously through three roles: as gatekeepers to the platform, as legislators of the relationships within their ecosystems, and as contractual actors participating in the transactions they rule on. Adjacent work proposes distributive equity, the fair allocation of welfare across all ecosystem participants, as a candidate additional consideration for antitrust enforcement where those participants are not equally served by traditional competition-law analysis. This paper documents a single worked example: a community-scale platform (Village, operated by My Digital Sovereignty Limited, Aotearoa New Zealand) whose structural commitments are the enactment of a prior theoretical commitment — that the welfare pathology identified in the research programme is best understood as a values drift pathology, and that structural architecture is the mechanism by which a platform's declared values can be made sticky enough to resist that drift. The paper situates Village's structural commitments inside the Tractatus framework that generated them — a constitutional architecture grounded in Wittgenstein's sayable / unsayable distinction, Berlin's value pluralism, Ostrom's polycentric governance, Alexander's living-systems principles, and Te Ao Māori frameworks of indigenous data sovereignty — and argues that the overlap between Village's work and the legal-academic research programme on ecosystem power is at the values layer, not only at the structural layer. Both are responses to the same concern: that platform power, left to drift, will be exercised against the welfare of ecosystem participants whose welfare the market does not defend. Section 4 documents the platform's AI substrate as a Situated Language Layer bound by the same constitutional architecture it enables, grounded in the operator's published AI Governance for Communities article series. The author is a single-founder company director, not a legal scholar. The paper's contribution is documentary rather than theoretical: it offers the research programme one primary-source-rich case to assess, critique, extend, or reject. Available editions: English (canonical), Deutsch, Français, Nederlands, and te reo Māori. The Māori edition is machine-translated by DeepL and pending native-speaker review; the other four are primary and machine-translated respectively. Canonical HTML edition: https://agenticgovernance.digital/whitepapers/distributive-equity.html

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19600615
Primary Topic
Digital Platforms and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Distributive Equity Through Structure: A Community-Scale Worked Example of Values Stickiness

John Stroh
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Digital Platforms and Economics
article

Distributive Equity Through Structure: A Community-Scale Worked Example of Values Stickiness

John Stroh
article en

Abstract

A body of recent legal scholarship argues that digital platforms exercise a distinct form of power — ecosystem power — operating simultaneously through three roles: as gatekeepers to the platform, as legislators of the relationships within their ecosystems, and as contractual actors participating in the transactions they rule on. Adjacent work proposes distributive equity, the fair allocation of welfare across all ecosystem participants, as a candidate additional consideration for antitrust enforcement where those participants are not equally served by traditional competition-law analysis. This paper documents a single worked example: a community-scale platform (Village, operated by My Digital Sovereignty Limited, Aotearoa New Zealand) whose structural commitments are the enactment of a prior theoretical commitment — that the welfare pathology identified in the research programme is best understood as a values drift pathology, and that structural architecture is the mechanism by which a platform's declared values can be made sticky enough to resist that drift. The paper situates Village's structural commitments inside the Tractatus framework that generated them — a constitutional architecture grounded in Wittgenstein's sayable / unsayable distinction, Berlin's value pluralism, Ostrom's polycentric governance, Alexander's living-systems principles, and Te Ao Māori frameworks of indigenous data sovereignty — and argues that the overlap between Village's work and the legal-academic research programme on ecosystem power is at the values layer, not only at the structural layer. Both are responses to the same concern: that platform power, left to drift, will be exercised against the welfare of ecosystem participants whose welfare the market does not defend. Section 4 documents the platform's AI substrate as a Situated Language Layer bound by the same constitutional architecture it enables, grounded in the operator's published AI Governance for Communities article series. The author is a single-founder company director, not a legal scholar. The paper's contribution is documentary rather than theoretical: it offers the research programme one primary-source-rich case to assess, critique, extend, or reject. Available editions: English (canonical), Deutsch, Français, Nederlands, and te reo Māori. The Māori edition is machine-translated by DeepL and pending native-speaker review; the other four are primary and machine-translated respectively. Canonical HTML edition: https://agenticgovernance.digital/whitepapers/distributive-equity.html

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Digital Science (United States) (US)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Digital Platforms and Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.