November 10, 2007
Dave Snowden: From fragments to sense
Terrific post by Stu Henshall about what sounds like a fantastic talk by Dave Snowden (whose blog is here) at KMWorld. Dave combines the broad and deep with the incisive and the practical. Yikes! (Don't miss the four posts from Dave that Stu points to as "must reads.")
Posted by self at 07:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 04, 2007
What's unspoken between us
I'm giving the opening talk at Defrag tomorrow, and for some reason I insist on talking about the implicit. I keep coming back to this topic, and I still don't get it right. Here are the notes for my talk; they accompany a deck, which might explain their sketchiness. You may notice bits I've talked about before, but much of this is new...and at least this audience isn't going to have to watch my "Everything Is Miscellaneous" talk again.
Here goes:
At Defrag we’re talking about how we can put the pieces back together. The pieces aren’t broken because the original order is there. But now we can ALSO arrange them the way we want.
I want to talk about the role of the implicit, because as we put pieces together, the way we do it is more in service of what isn’t said -- it’s more mysterious than we sometimes think, and we should be humble about our ability to piece ourselves together.
I’ve decided to call it the unspoken because the implicit is about what we don’t see or don’t know, whereas the unspoken says that what isn’t there has to do with language and meaning.
This talk is divided into five moments of the unsaid
#1
[I'll read the following poem:]
Blue Hydrangea
Like the green that cakes in a pot of paint,
these leaves are dry, dull and rough
behind this billow of blooms whose blue
is not their own but reflected from far away
in a mirror dimmed by tears and vague,
as if it wished them to disappear again
the way, in old blue writing paper,
yellow shows, then violet and gray;
a washed-out color as in children's clothes
which, no longer worn, no more can happen to:
how much it makes you feel a small life's brevity.
But suddenly the blue shines quite renewed
within one cluster, and we can see
a touching blue rejoice before the green.
Rainer Maria Rilke
William H. Gass, trans.
Look at how much isn’t said in that line. We wash clothes, and they become more our own as they lose their color. That’s something we know implicitly. We know that clothes need washing.
The next line makes explicit that Rilke is thinking of clothing folded and put away for a child who has grown. Rilke is giving us increasing degrees of explicitness. Poet has to get this right.
But, computers are explicit. At the hex level, the poem is unambiguous and explicit
Even more explicit at the bit level. Anything left unsaid is simply undone when it comes to bits.
Computers began as engines of the explicit.
In the 1950s, they were the symbol of reducing life to data, and thus were symbols of conformity - we had to conform ourselves to their needs.
There was truth to the old Hollywood view. We all know that computers have reduced us. We look like this, but to the database we look like this,
We have allowed ourselves to be informationalized - thoroughly reconceived in terms of information
Information has even somehow been added to the basic mix of how we understand ourselves, as if we had a flesh and blood organ that processes information.
But, the Web is different from fifties computers. The Web links one page to another, but does so through language...the language of the anchor text as well as the words around it that contextualize it.
Hyperlinks are the opposite of information. They enrich, rather than reduce. Open-ended, decentralized, messy… all the things databases of info are not. Most of all, they are social...
...They are done for someone by someone. Linking is a type of writing. We link for some anticipated set of readers.
So, the Web works against the regime of informationalization.
Rashi said [I can't find the reference] about dogs that contact with humans ensouls them. That’s what we’re doing with computers, in a way.
Which is so different from where we thought computers were going in the Fifties. We thought in fact that computers as engines of informationalization when they became human, as with HAL in “2001,” they’d be demonic precisely because they grew up alone, in a world of mere information.
#2
I can’t tell you everything about my children. If I could, something would be wrong with our relationship.
If everything about a character can be expressed by saying she’s the dumb blond or the wisecracking sidekick, the character has failed. So, I can’t tell you everything about my children. But here’s what our relationship looks like to Facebook, when my son friended me. [The form with the categories of relationships]
This is a poor beginning. But it’s just the beginning.
We quickly ensoul Facebook by what’s said, and by what isn’t said, just as with all human relationships.
Judith Donath talks about this in terms of signaling...
...which we could also think of as gesturing. The value often isn’t in what’s said, but in what isn’t said ... the gesture, unintended or intended (Tommie Smith, 1968). It is hard to exhaust the meaning of such a gesture. It is hard to say what it gestures to.
#3
In an informationalized age, we think we are always giving off information. We used to see a street ...
… as a flow and eddies of publicness and privacy -- unfathomably rich with the implicit. That’s why we can sit at a sidewalk cafe and watch the river.
But now we think it’s all information, and all is information is alike. The surveillance cameras can’t tell the interesting bits from the uninteresting. It’s all explicit. That’s why we’re ok with 5000,000 surveillance cameras in London. The private has gone from what is kept off the record to, now that everything is on the record, what we’re allowed to pay attention to on the record. We may trust our government to see the right statistical correlations, but we can see beyond the statistics. We know there's more there. But why?
#4
We understand things through their potential. We simply don’t understand what an acorn is if we don’t see that it’s a potential oak tree, even though statistically, most acorns will rot in the ground.
Compare that to ["If you can dream it, you can be it," which claims all is possible. There’s got to be a better way to give our children hope than to lie to them.
Compare this to Rilke's lines about the child, in which we grieve the loss of potential, even when the potential is actualized, as when children grow up.
That’s not to say we’re good at understanding potential itself. For example, both sides in the abortion debate are prone to get this wrong. The pro-choice people have been known to refer to an embryo as a mere lump of flesh, as a growth. The anti-choice folks confuse the potential of the fetus with its actuality, thinking of abortion as the murder of a person. We’re not very good at understanding potential. Both are wrong. The fetus is a potential person, although that doesn’t help you resolve the debate, because we don’t know what rights are owed to lumps of flesh that can grow into into personhood.
We can informationalize potential and make statistical guesses, which may be quite accurate.
We can even teach a computer about potential. Doug Lenat’s CYC is trying to teach a computer all that we know without having to speak it -- that clothes have to be washed, and that washed clothes sometimes lose their color. It’s quite difficult to utter everything you know. CYC uses teams of philosophy PhD’s, for well over a decade. Yet even if CYC passes the Turing test about children’s clothing, we know something is missing. What?
Potential is lumpy. The world shows itself to us in those lumps. What turns the statistical homogeneity of possibility into the curds of potential?
#5
Rilke shows us something about old blue writing paper, and leaves most of it unsaid: That there is connection to hydrangea and to childhood. That the decomposition of time can reveal what was there but hidden. That the natural world and the world of art are not separate. But there is a world of possible connections Rilke could make. He chooses to make some of them apparent. He lets the world show in terms of what matters. Mattering makes possibility lumpy. The fact that we care about the world creates the lumps of potential. That’s the difference between us and CYC. It’s not simply that we care and CYC doesn’t. It’s that our caring creates a shared unspoken that is the source of meaning and value. We have divided the world into lumps because it matters, because we care.
It is ultimately language that is the unspoken between us. Language is driven by what matters to us. We have words, sentences, paragraphs, punctuation.... That’s the shared lumpiness of the the unsaid. And now we have links. Links that have presence and persistence.
Our brains discriminate edges, but we we also are fascinated by the transcendence of edges. The value is in the complex, the loose-edged, the potential, the unspoken, because that is what we share and how the world matter to us.
Defrag -- our generational project, not just this conference -- isn’t about reassembling pieces. It’s not about clarity and simplicity. It’s about how we are finding ways to let the world matter to us together. For that we need to enable, cherish, and protect the unspoken between us.
Posted by self at 07:34 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
October 13, 2007
Veerstichting explained
I'm just back from the Veerstichting symposium in Leiden, the Netherlands. I know I've made several references to it i (1 2) without explaining what it is. Now that I've been there, I have some idea.
It's an annual two-day conference, by the Dutch and for the Dutch, that's been around for about 25 years. About 600 people attend, half of them students. They emphasize the presence of students. For example, at one of the dinners, you're seated carefully at the long tables in a student-nonstudent sequence. And each speaker is assigned a student host who stays with you throughout the two days.
The program itself consists of a series of thirty-minute presentations (20 mins of talk, ten of Q and A) by an eclectic set of speakers. This year, they included a former high official of the UN who talked about the nature of Indian identity, the coach of the winning Dutch women's hockey team, a guy who writes about why management sucks, a leading biologist explaining the evolutionary basis of herd behavior, Naomi Klein on "shock therapy economics," the head of the Rwandan courts punishing those who participated in genocide, and the star of a popular sex-and-drugs interview show on TV. The attendees seemed to favor senior business folks, government officials, and the occasional Queen of the Netherlands. (The Queen brushed by me on her way to talk with one of the speakers. I was this close to the back of her head!)
Unlike most American conferences, Veerstichting incorporates cultural events. For example, to kick off the afternoon session, there was a ten-minute modern dance routine, and there was a longer dance about freedom or something — all I know for sure is that the dancer pulled the head off of a large stuffed sheep — where Americans might have had an after-dinner speaker. Also, there's much more drinking than at American events, not even counting the party at the student union where I lost my voice and 45% of my senses in a large packed room where the beer flowed like good, cheap beer.
The venue itself is gorgeous. It was held in a cathedral that now is a public space. And Leiden itself is a snow-globe version of Amsterdam. My student host Ben Zevenberger, who is studying IP and Net law, took me on a walking tour. The architecture is highly reminiscent of Amsterdam, but lowered a few stories, while the streets are (or seem) wider. Bicycles rule the streets, and cars are the interlopers. What a beautiful place.
And here's one more way it's beautiful. At a speakers dinner, I sat next to a senior business guy who was also one of the event's sponsors. He told me that after Katrina hit, he spoke with the manager of his company's facility in New Orleans. It had been destroyed. "But don't worry," the manager said, "We've already stopped the payroll, since obviously no one's coming in." The Dutch executive was appalled. "Pay them twice their normal salaries. They need our help!" The Dutch sense of social obligation — the "we're in this together" attitude — is remarkable, but really only what it should be.
The event itself is a bit like PopTech or TED in its eclecticism. Add to that the focus on students, the beauty of the surroundings, and the fact that you get to spend time among the Dutch, and you have yourself a unique event.
I asked Ben if the Dutch were ok with having English-speakers call their country "Holland" instead of "The Netherlands." It's fine, he said, adding that the Dutch call it "Holland" (although I thought Holland was a region of the Netherlands). Since "nether" has unfortunate connotations in English (we can just stick with the "nether world" if you want), I was happy to have permission to refer to the country as "Holland."
And while we're on the topic, if it's ok to call the country "Holland," can we call the Dutch the "Hollish"?
PS: Here's some info on the various terms.
Posted by self at 12:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 11, 2007
Veerstichting conference
I'm at the Veerstichting conference in charming, delightful, beautiful Leiden..
I had to surrender my laptop to the AV squad — I would have been the only one taking notes on one anyway — so I could only scribble a few notes on a piece of paper, and even then I only heard the first two speakers all the way through.
Jan Willem Duyvendak is the author of the book on human herds and identity. Since the theme of the conference is the power of the herd, he was a natural beginning. He talked about the Dutch believe that they are a diverse society when in fact there is much commonality among them. "We are a herd of individualists," he said. He spoke in the context of the current Dutch debate over immigration and national identity.
Next, Shashi Tharoor, an author and once high enough at the UN to be consider for the secretary general post, gave a beautiful and delightful talk about the Indian national identity. After listing some of that country's amazing diversity (23 official languages, for example), he said "The singular thing about India is you can only talk about it in the plural." Indian national identity, he says, works in practice but could not work in theory. It is a nationalism of the idea that people can disagree, so long as they agree on the ground rules.
Domitila Mukantaganzwa, the Executive Secretary of National Service of Gacaca Courts in Rwanda, went through in some detail the process of trying almost 900,000 people for crimes of genocide. The magnitude of the legal process implicitly showed the extent of the suffering. She was asked why the South African peace and reconciliation process forgave those who acknowledged their crimes, while the Rwandans are punishing those convicted. She said the severity of the crimes were different. And the Rwandans, she said, need to develop a culture of accountability. The survivors need to see the guilty punished. They also need, she says, to have the guilty tell them where they committed their crimes so parents can find and bury their children with dignity. This is a story beyond comment.
Finally, after rewriting and rewriting the talk I'd prepared on the challenge of the implicit in forming groups (summarized here), I at the last moment decided not to switch. So I gave the one on the implicit. I have no idea how it went over.
Posted by self at 03:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 10, 2007
My maybe-talk at Veerstichting
I've been working hard on a new presentation, to be given tomorrow at the Veerstichting conference in Leiden, in the Netherlands. After tonight's speakers dinner, I'm thinking maybe the last half (including the Wikipedia portions) of my Everything is Miscellaneous talk would be more suitable. I don't what I'll decide.
Here's the gist of the new talk. I'm going to be sketchy, because I have to go to sleep very soon, but mainly because there's something missing at the talk's core. The title is something like "The Challenge of the Implicit." It's a 20-minute talk.
The Web is best understood as a social realm. But groups (vs. mere groupings) become real when people know more about one another than they can say. For example, I can't tell you much of what I know about my kids. And when you can express a character in just a phrase, the character's been badly written. What makes a group a group is not the lines among the people, but what is unsaid and can't ever be said fully
But computers are monsters of the explicit. That's why in the 1950s they symbolized the mechanizing of relationships. From the beginning, information itself was invented to manage, and thus reduce, complex relationships. Now this poorly defined word (few use it in Shannon's sense) has become an assumed part of how we know our world.We think we're constantly emitting info. E.g., a street scene used to be a river with eddies of public and private. Now it's all info. This has enabled a switch in how we think of privacy, from that which we exclude from the record, to what the authorities are not allowed to pay attention to in the record that now includes everything.
The Web is a disruption in this informationalization. It is built of links, which use language to contextualize relatioships. Links are the opposite of databased information: They enrich rather than reduce, are decentralized, personal, and fundamentally social in that they are written by one person for others to use.
Yet the Web is (in a sense) lousy at the social. It knows about links but not about people or groups. That's why social networking sites are rising so quickly. They internalize the Web, providing the connective features we're used to on the Net (email, IM, etc.).
While groups depend on the implicit, social networking sites start by asking for explicit info about our network and interests. But that's ok because they so quickly transcend those sticks and twine. Real, messy social relations grow. Good!
But: (1) Making things explicit can be highly disruptive. Computers — and software designers — are not always good at this, especially since we don't have good norms yet, and perhaps never will. (2) Much of what's of value in the implicit was created without intending to. There are thus issues about how much we are entitled to make not just explicit but public. (3) The implicit is by its nature messy and connective. It always drags more into the light than it intended. It's thus hard to keep the above issues separate and containable. (4) We have an obligation and an opportunity to increase and preserve the unspoken. Explicitly.
The end.
I'm thinking that this talk is not ready to be presented. Too bad. I've worked hard on it. I guess I'll decide tomorrow morning. Sigh.
Posted by self at 06:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 04, 2007
Skipping Ideas
I was supposed to be doing the closing keynote at the Ideas conference in NYC tomorrow -- which looks like an excellent conference -- but I'm in Day Two of a miserable sore throat, ear ache, head ache beat down. I had been hoping it was going to be a one day illness, but I woke up way worse than I felt yesterday.
So I've regretfully told the conference I'm not going to make it. I just can't visualize dragging myself down to the train station and making the trip. I feel like, well, crap.
I hate doing this. And it's probably not a genuine health issue...it's not like if I travel, I'll die. It's just discomfort, and maybe a slightly longer recuperation although I'm not convinced that that's the case. So maybe I should just suck it up and go to the train station. But, the thought of 3.5 hours of head rattling, even in the relative comfort of a train, fills me with anxiety.
So, I guess I'm not going. I'm sure the conference will be splendid without my closing comments. Think of it as my gift of more hallway time.
:(
Posted by self at 12:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 29, 2007
Picnic O7 presentation and (sort of) debate
Here's a video of the full session I was at at Picnic '07. It includes Walt Mossberg's introduction, my 40 minute keynote (very similar to the presentation that I did at Google, although with a short section on the importance and difficulty of the implicit added, and some references in anticipation of the debate to follow), and then the half hour or so of my debate with Andrew Keen, moderated by Walt M.
I haven't watched the video beyond the first few minutes -- the production quality is high -- but my sense of the debate was that Andrew was on an oddly anti-intellectual track, attacking me as a "professional philosopher," which I'm not (I was an assistant professor of philosophy 22 years ago), and even if I were, why would that be a criticism, especially coming from a guy who is out arguing for the importance of credentialed authorities? Not helpful to discussing the actual topic. Frustrating. My feeling coming out of the discussion over all was indeed frustration. I didn't think we were able to pursue points sufficiently.
BTW, somewhere in my presentation you can see me very carefully get left and right confused. Also, I'm going to plug again my more coherent attempt to explain and evaluate Keen's argument: Andrew Keen's Best Case.
Posted by self at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 17, 2007
[scs2007] first sessions
I'm at the Microsoft Research Social Computing Seminar. It's a fantastic group of attendees. Liz Lawley does the intro, followed by Lili Cheng. We hear a little about Social Genius.
We go around the room saying who we are and what we're interested in. There are about 60 of us here, I think.
Now Matt Biddulph of Dopplr.com is talking about how to make presence fuzzy. Dopplr lets you see which of your friends are going to be in a city. But why not be able to control the size of the range? So there's a slider.
Tom Coates (who is hilarious on the back channel) is working on a project code-named Fire Eagle at Yahoo's Brickhouse. He talks about presence as making you visible and comprehensible not just to other people but to software that could do yet more with it. You can tell Fire Eagle your location via SMS, other apps, etc. E.g., you could map all the Twitter tweets. You could use your phone to look for groups. You could automatically geotag your blogs posts or flickr photos. Tom now talks about protecting against abuse of this info. In addition to the opt outs, you can create "special places" that are off the map, so to speak.
Gilad Lotan talks about presence and objects. He likes to embed conective technology into objects. E.g., he built "imPulse" tha transfers heartbeats through a wall. The next version was wireless. When two of these pods are in the same room, they talk to each other. Likewise, he did a touch project for the Kotel. Ubi.ach (say it aloud) "takes email away from the screen." It's a doll that blinks when you get new email. A street exhibit in Jerusalem shows some of the missiles fired at Israel embedded in ordinary scenes. Another of Gilad's projects creates Tibetan prayer wheels controlled by images from news feeds. Overall: Four points on presence: Connection through intimacy, range of immediacy, culture and context, and importance of the tangible.
danah boyd talks about social networking site as "networked publics" (in the Habermasian sense). They are spaces within which collections of people exist, through mediating tools. Hannah Arendt said that the presence of others assures of the reality of the world around us. Mobile phones create social spaces for teens — an always-on intimate community. [sorry, this is coming out far more disjointed than the actual presentation.] When you write, you write for an imagined audience, a public that your writing creates. Socnets do this for groups of friends/acquaintances. For teens, at socnets you display that you're engaged in a relationship before you actually are; they're ways of marking relationships. The intended audience is the social network. danah shows two photos of teenagers kissing by the juxtaposition ("juxtapokissin'"?) of the photos; this is because it's so hard for teenagers to find real world public spaces. She points to the traces of relationships in the real world in which we can see time and the aging of the relationships.
Posted by self at 02:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 27, 2007
Ethan on live blogging
Ethanz, who is in the pantheon of live bloggers, has a detailed post explaining how he does it. I think he intends to pass along the tips and tricks that will encourage others to live-blog, but it actually seems so daunting that it may have the opposite effect. And among the tools in the live bloggers kit bag that Ethan does not mention are: his rare combination of analytic and sympathetic skills, his breadth of knowledge, his awesome writing skill, and his patience.
I like live-blogging. (I do it far worse than Ethan does; you're always better off reading Ethan's posts than mine.) But I find it very tiring. I fairly predictably poop out after lunch.
Ethan also writes a beautiful appreciation of our friend Henok Mehari, who has just finished up his internship at the Berkman Center. All I can add to what Ethan has said is: Amen. Henok's story is amazing, and, most hopeful of all is that he is only really at the beginning of it. [Tags: ethan_zuckerman henok_mehari berkman liveblogging blogging]
Posted by self at 02:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 22, 2007
[supernova] Nicholas Carr and Chris Meyer
[supernova] Nicholas Carr and Chris MeyerNicholas Carr is working on a book on what all these changes mean economically. In the 19th century, factories to produce their own power. Producing it more economically could be an important competitive advantage. Then independent power suppliers supplied it far more economically. In 1910, only 40% of electricity was generated by independent utilities, and most of that went to lighting. Just 20 years later, 80% was coming from utilities. This unleashed network innovation. But the real change came when sockets were everywhere. Now there was huge innovation in the appliances that plug into them, from assembly lines to televisions to computers.
Now we can have rich computing services served over the network, services that could not be matched at the local level. When we have computer sockets the way we have power sockets, all sorts of things will change.
The challenge is to begin to break free from the Web 2.0 world and the narrow innovation we see there.
"Organization: The Fourth Factor of Production" is Chris Meyer 's talk's title. What isn't going to change, he asks. Technology drives organizational innovation. But traditionally the response has been to create departments to manage change.In 1937, Ronald Coase wrote "The Nature of the Firm.". What wil lbe the next answer in the information economy? Traversal of the boundaries. Web 2.0 collaborative tools. Chris recommends Neal Stephenson's vision in The Diamond Age as a social vision for business...
In the Q&A, Nick says that the electrical network only supplied electricity, whereas the future computing network will supply services as a commodity. Chris points out that industrialization happened within one legal system, while this change is happening internationally.
Chris predicts that they'll be a bifurcation, with some big centralized corporations, and then a swarm outside.
Q: (brad templeton) The real difference isn't bandwidth but control...
A: (nick) Rich applications over the Net empowers the user, even if they don't own and control it.
(Chris) You should only bother controlling things that are choice. But in Nick's world, bandwidth is not scarce.
Q: (Shannon Clark) Your pronouns of yours and ours are inappropriate...
A: (John Hagel) What happens to competitive strategy in this world you're sketching?
Q: (Nick) It depends on the industry.
A (chris) Strategic advantage? Who needs it. It's for firms in the old sense. [Tags: supernova2007 supernova07 nicholars_carr chris_meyer ]
Posted by self at 12:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 21, 2007
[supernova] Denise Caruso on anti-social software and Clay Shirky's lovefest
Denise Caruso, author of the new book Intervention, has been thinking about risk. She looks at innovations that have had nasty unanticipated consequences. The way to avoid it? "Have a conversation." Talk with people before hand. E.g., the company that was going to incinerate chemical weapons in Oregon talked with environmentalists and their ilk and came up with better means of disposal. People don't always do this because they fear it.
And, Internet tolols and culture exacerbate it. Targeted search taks away serendipity. Blogger bubbles, etc.
There are "potential dealbreakers" for the Net, she says, including copyuright bs. social media. So, we need to re-socialize the Net. We should automate serendipity.
Clay Shirky begins by talking about a disagreement in Japan about whether a temple is old even though it's been rebuilt as part of continuing process. The dispute is over "solidity of edifice, not solidity of process."
Then he talks about a big development contract he got many years ago with AT&T in which he was challenged to provide support. "We get our support from a community," Clay said, but to them it was like he'd said "We get our Thursdays from a banana." So, he showed them it working in practice. They couldn't see it work in practice because they already knew it couldn't work in theory. He points to comp.lang.perl. "It's doing fine," but how is AT&T doing? Not so well. The solidity of the thing is evanescent.
Perl is like the temple, says Clay. It continues because the people doing it love Perl enough to stop what they're doing and help one another. "No contracts are written, no money changes hands." "We don't often talk about love" at these conferences. But tools for coordinating and talking — simple things like mailing lists — turn love into a renewable building material. This leads to unexpected, unanticipated consequences. the better predictor of longevity is not the business model but do the people care about one another.
There's lots of commercial opportunity. We're not going to all live together in a commune. But the ability to get people together outside of management and profit motive creates a huge opportunity. And traditional work will be intertwined with this way of working.
Within 24 hours of Linus posting his first message, he had a global network of people eager to collaborate. The monitoring of Nigerian election through people using SMS and Flickr, the responses to terrorist actions, the anti-immigration-law protests coordinated through MySpace...we will see much more of that.
Add collaboration tools to love and you can write an operating system.
We can now do big things with love.
[This was a classic and beautiful statement of why the Net works and why it matters...and the fact that those two things are the same is what's most hope-giving about the Net. Clay is such a phenomenal combination of insight, brilliance as a writer, and, well, love.]
[Tags: supernova2007 supernova07 clay_shirky denise_caruso love social_software everything_is_miscellaneous]
[The next day] Nick Douglas - who is hilarious to have on a backchannel chat - video interviewed me right after Clay's talk, so the conversation turned to love and community.
Posted by self at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 01, 2007
[is2k7] John Palfrey's keynote
John Palfrey of the Berkman opens the conference by looking at the digital age from the point of view of students,
Students: "It's not about being digital. It's about students who are born digital." This is a profound difference, JP says. He points to four traits of students,always on and always attached.
1. Digital Identity. The natives assume they have 'em.
2. Natives arre multi-taskers "but in ways heretofore unseen." The Socratic method changes when every student has a laptop in front of her. Everyone has multiple IM sessions going. "It's not necessarily a good thing" but it's the fac. .
3. Natives assume media comes in digital form, and thus is malleable. And it's searchable. "Research now means a Google search."
4. Natives are creators. "This is a huge shift from previous generations." From consumers to creators.
These changes are not all good, JP says. Henry Jenkins has identified the "participation gap" (an effect of the digital divide). There are ethics challenges and transparency problems ("who created what").
Teachers:
1. Digital identities: Should faculty members have Facebook accounts? Is your teacher your friend?
2. Emergent tools: "How do we capture this extaordinary move from consumers to creators?" Should teachers start using wikis, e.g.?
University: What about it ought to be reborn?
1. Digital ID: What does it mean for Harvard to have a digital ID? now that both students and info are born digital, how does a university understand its identity?
2. Digital info: JP points to Dan Gillmor's Center for Digital Media as a site trying to figure out what things like accuracy and fairness mean. He also points to PLoS.
3. Open Access: One Laptop Per Child,Access to Knowledge , OpenNet Initiative and many others are responding to this need. The "Open to Harvard ID Holders Only" badge is up in front of Harvard's digital information, and it doesn't need to be, says JP.
Now JP raises "hard questions."
What is the relationship between the university and say, Reed Elsevier, Google, RIAA, MPAA, Second Life? Should the U be striking exclusive deals with Google? Should the U deliver the RIAA's cease and desist letters?
"What is the best way to invest in libraries in a digital age?"
"How do we fund and sustain the generation of digital knowledge?" Should we be looking at funders, or should we be adopting a business model like Google's or Times Select's?
"How does this generation of new library scientists learn?"
"What is the impact of an outdated copyright system?" Should the U be taking a leading role in improving the system? [Tags: is2k7 john_palfrey]
Posted by self at 02:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
[is2k7] Yesterday, and today's opening
I'm at The Berkman Center's Internet and Society Conference ("Knowledge beyond Authority"). Yesterday was an an invitation-only day for about 100 people. Today is a public conference:
Stream: http://www.law.harvard.edu/media/2007/06/01/berkman.rm
I found portions of yesterday's meetings a little frustrating. It was a fantastic set of people, from all over Harvard, other universities, non-profits, open access folks, and representatives of the content industries (journal publishers, entertainment industry). There were many great discussions, but with some I think I'm just out of step with the times. I thought we spent too much time trying to find "common ground" with the content industries. Especially the Hollywood folks seemed to think common ground means a tit for a tat: We turn in file sharers and they let us have more access to their copyrighted content for educational purposes. I hate that deal. Whatever you think of file sharing, it should not be tied to the ability of the university to advance knowledge, research and education. We might as well be talking about giving away the stadium's naming rights in return for more academic freedom.
That sounds good, but in fact it's obstructionist. In fact, at one point I was so exercised about this that I behaved badly. And not in the cute or righteous way. More in the rude asshole way. I feel terrible about that, and have apologized to the person I was rude to. I really don't like the self-righteous me. And it gets in the way of thought.
Charlie Nesson , the conference creator, has inspired me with the idea that the university can be the leading defender of the Internet and of the needed expansion intellectual rights. I'm not ready to be realistic. And that's a problem.
Mary Wong is opening the conference (after Charles Ogletree 's welcome ... subbing for Charlie Nesson who is in the hospital having something fixed (he'll be fine)). She says the discussions yesterday focused not only on the challenges around universities using licensed material, but also around the licensing and commercialization of material generated by the university. She says there was a lot of discussion of the vagueness of Fair Use. Is there anything we can do to clarify it? And if we did, would that new understanding, intended as a floor, get taken as the ceiling, thus actually limiting Fair Use in practice?
[Tags: berkman harvard a2k copyright copyleft digital_rights education is2k7]
Posted by self at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 05, 2007
No blogging today
Yes, it's a self-contradictory headline. But to heck with logical formalities. I'm still flu-ish, and I'l lbe on a train most of the day because my doctor told me not to fly. I'm in DC where I got to keynote the NTEN conference...over a thousand techies working for non-profits, long may they wave. (Thanks to Katrin Verclas for the invitation, and for all the good work she does.)
Posted by self at 12:22 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
March 24, 2007
Politics Online Conf blogged
Jessica Duda blogs the Politics Online Conference. Good overview. [Tags: politics politics_online_conference jessica_duda]
Posted by self at 09:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 12, 2007
[ctpaa] Cable panel on Net neutrality
I'm at the Cable Television Public Affairs Association meeting to give a lunchtime talk to the marketing folks.
It's in the Ritz-Carlton in DC, which tells you something about the industry. This is a well-dressed crowd. Maybe one-third are women. I'm the only one in the audience iwth an open laptop. (The Ritz provides wifi everywhere in the hotel for $10/day.)
I come in late to the morning panel. On it are Mark Robichaux (ed., Broadcasting & Cable Magazine), Mark Coblitz (SVP of Comcast), Laureen Ong (Pres, National Geographic Channel), Joseph Sapan (Pres, Rainbow Media), Michael Wilner (CEO, Insight Comms). Unfortunately, I don't know who is who, except for the woman, and Robichaux, who is moderating. [As always, my live blogging is deeply flawed and more unreliable the closer to quotes and details it gets. Also, in the broad themes and characterizations. Also spelling.]
Blogs
In response to a question about negative blogs, one of the panelists says that some of their operators actually have blogs. "We embrace it." Another writes them off as a few people who like to complain. "Everyone in this room should read blogs every day about their companies," says another. "If we're not listening as much as we're speaking to our constituents, we're not doing our job." [Then how about symmetric bandwidth up and down, hmmm?] Mark Robichaux, the moderator, says "Sometimes bloggers are canaries in the coal mine."
Laureen Ong of National Geographic says that bloggers and others online answer questions for them in a useful way.
A la carte tv
How about a la carte TV, asks Robichaux? Josh Sapan (Rainbow Media) praises the diversity of cable offerings, all the way from BET to National Geographic. "It's a great diversity of voice." [Hah!] Mark Coblitz agrees that's lots of diversity. Each person may only watch seven channels, he says, but the seven channels vary from person to person. Michael (?) says we need to argue against a la carte, just as we have to argue against Net neutrality.
Net neutrality
"What's Net neutrality?"
"That's easy: People should be able to go anywhere they want to, attach any device, and know what the terms of their service are." [He's implicitly citing the FCC's Four Principles, which isn't what most people mean by Net neutrality. And I left one out because I couldn't keep up.] "Isn't that that the Internet is all about?," says another. "Anyone get to do anything they want," he continues, I think sarcastically. The first says "This is all about sharing resouces so everyone gets the maximum out of them." The task, he says, is to communicate the technical reasons why Net neutrality is bad. "People said in the year 2000 that we need to save the Internet, but we don't want the Net of 2000. I want the Internet that's coming," the one that lets people do the new things they want to do." [The one that shows Time-Warner movies and requires a company to pay for competitively fast service? Or the one where anyone can create and innovate in any way she wants, on equal footing?]
They complain that they don't have the anti-net neutrality sound bite. "We talked about Net neutering, but that doesn't work too well. That's our own internal, because that's what it does." [Cool! "Net neutrality" works! We're so used to complaining that the anti-NN folks beat us at marketing that it's great to hear the same sort of whining coming from them.]
"The Internet is beginning to show the strains of its technology," says another. "We offer 10 meg down and one meg up, which is a lot." [Only compared to the pathetic speeds in the US, and only down, not up.] The geeks who measure it don't always get that." "The infrastructure can't handle what everyone's idea of what the Internet is unless someone starts to build it out." People won't be able to make the investment to enable, say, Netflix, to use the Internet effectively so that it works all the time and people have a good experience almost all the time.
Robichaux: "So the government would be handcuffing you."
"Exactly. And it's not just the last mile. It's all along the way."
Another: "Back in the lat 90s, there was a lot of fiber put in the ground. And guess what? We're using it up." [Most of the fiber is unused. And see Bruce Kushnick on the $200B of tax money the incumbents took to run fiber to our houses, but then forgot to.] "Net neutrality says everone should be able to go where they want and be able to pay. We don't diagree with the four principles. But as soon as you put them down in writing, they're open to interpretation. And that interpretation changes everything."
"You know who's making the money and making the NN argument? Little companies like Google." He cites someone who said that NN would kill innovation. "If you want Net neutrality, it should be Internet neutrality for all the elements." E.g., Google is too dominant, eBay owns its means of payment. [This is equivalent to saying that if you want free speech, you really ought to enforce all points of view in your dinner time conversation.]
Competition
Mark Robichaux: Satellite?
Ong: Brand counts. Viewers know that the facts on our channel are triple-checked.
Sapan: It's made us better via competitive pressure. E.g., IFC hosts small films, and we let you watch it on-demand simultaneously when it's released to the theaters
"Congress says the problem with out industry is that we don't have competitors. But we wake up every day thinking about how we compete in the marketplace. Every business we're in is extremely competitive on the distriution side." [Still, most of us don't have much of a choice.]
"We're all losing eyeballs to the Internet, and I'd go so far as saying you can lose your phone before you lose your video, and you can lose your video before you lose your online connection. It trumps everything. The younger generation is turning TVs off. They're on the Internet. They're watching the same content thanks to some of our friends [sarcastic] making it available." [Wow.]
User-generated content
Robichaux: "What's the best idea for using the Internet as a tool for your company?"
Ong: We have a tech savvy audience so the Internet is something we use to promote back to the channel, to put programming out that they can't see on the linear channel, and we recognize that it's making us rethink our business because no one is going to watch a full-length documentary on the Internet. [Maybe not, at least this month. But we'll move it onto our iPod our TV, if we're able.]
Sapan: The area we're messing with right now is mixing user generated content with video on demand and linear television. Not much has been done with that.
Robichaux: why is ugc important?
Sapan: The history of TV is you make something, copyright it, put it on TV and the max number of people watch it. Now each of those is violated: There is no owner, there is no copyright. There's all these people spending all this time looking at user generated content. From a purely mercantile point of view, if there's a lot of time spent on it, that one way or another will be translated into money. What intriques is how to connect what people are making with video on demand. In the case of indie films, we're asking people to submit their short films. We curate them. We would like to place those films on the servers of cable companies in the geographic areas from which they come, so there could be "the best of" films in that area, and the "the best of the best of" that would make it onto the channel. [Current.tv? Why do we need the cable companies to do this for us?] This is good because it gives them the fastest Internet connection to the video, video on demand, and a linear channel. We pursuing this on IFC and We TV.
Coblitz (Comcast): We've woven Internet into just about everything we do.
Q&A
Robichaux: Take-aways: Be honest. Keep it simple. It's about relationships. For example, when you're talking to a Congressperson... [And here I thought he was talking about talking with customers!]
Questions from the floor.
Q: What are you doing about Internet safety?
A: (comcast) We provide parental controls to people who want them. Our 12 yr old said, "Dad, block anywhere you don't want me to go...but then don't look where I go."
A: (Insight) It's up to the parents, but most parents don't use the controls.The bad experiences are behind us [??]
A: (Rainbow) The computers aren't in the kids' bedrooms.
[Tags: ctpaa net_neutrality cable tv broadband blogs everything_is_miscellaneous media]
Posted by self at 11:17 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
March 08, 2007
Vegas
Q: What is the opposite of Venice?
A: The Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.
This is a hotel so large that I got agoraphobia when I walked in to it.
I arrived late last night to keynote the New Communications Forum this morning, and headed straight for the gambling area. Cocktail waitresses stroll the casino hangar in outfits that seem to have been designed forty years ago by horny thirteen year old boys.
Lose I did. I started on the quarter video poker, but the betting algorithm is too mechanical — hold onto the Jacks and higher, discard the rest — so I switched to a slot machine to eliminate any pretense of skill and get the whole thing over with. Six minutes later, I'd lost my entire bankroll. There's ten dollars I'll never see again.
I haven't yet seen the Venetian's mock canal (mockanal? nah, that doesn't come out right), which I'm looking forward to because of how smug it will make me feel.
The truth is that I sort of like Vegas because it is what it is and nothing more, although I'm not crazy about what it is. And, yes, I do know how lucky I am that I get to go places. Truly.
Now, on to the conference, which promises to be interesting, although I can only stay for the morning. [Tags: travel vegas gambling venice new_communications_forum]
Posted by self at 10:23 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
March 06, 2007
[f2c] Susan Crawford
Susan Crawford gives a talk about our inability to communicate outside this room
Imagine there's an easy-to-assemble toll booth. We drive into the gray world of the Land of Low Expectations. We're getting what the current providers give us.We can then go to the Land of Glittering Generalities that attempt to maintain the incumbents in power.
How do we get reason back? "Communications regulation should be about optimizing human communication." We have to persuade people that economic growth comes from new ideas, that the Internet is the greatest source of new ideas we've ever seen and that the telecom policy has to put the Internet at its core. We should claim that the Internet is different. "People are very uncomfortable when we say that, but we have to say it."
To help reason, we should be showing pictures. E.g., a chart of the market plummeting recently, and a chart of the weakness of the US economy. "If the rate economic growth in the US over the next 45 yrs were to increase by 0.5% per year, it could resolve all of the budget difficulties associated with the aging of the Baby Boom generation" with plenty left over. So, how do we continue growth in the US? "We need more meta-ideas about the generation of new ideas."
Aha! The internet - a source of new ideas." It's group-forming attributes and the chance to fail quickly are vital, too.
Policy outcomes: Universal service. Divestiture, separating services from content [i.e., the people who supply bit transport should not provide content.]
We need to professionalize, with better comparative data to show the effect of the Net on economy, the effect of Net neutrality, etc. And we need serious leadership.
We're running out of time. The future of the Internet hangs in the balance.
[SC for FCC!]
[Tags: fcc susan_crawford net_neutrality f2c ]
Posted by self at 03:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
[f2c] Alternative to Yochai
Peter Swire at Ohio State U and former privacy advisor to the Clinton Admin explains why he thinks Yochai Benkler gets it wrong. Benkler overstates the shift from market to non-market, and Peter will explain "why an economics-based alternative is pragmatically useful."
Your laptop is an information factory. Consumers own the means of production, which sounds pretty economic, he says. He says he's a big fan of Yochai, but not with the major thesis that says it is "social rather than proprietary and market relations that create all the big effects — freedom, equity, etc." (p. 92). But the shift to non-market is not proven, and there are pragmatic reasons to employ an economics-based approach.
Is non-market overstated? It's defined too broadly in the book, says Peter. And Yochai is observing the early adopters, but as the niche grows it may well go commercial. The amateurs give way to marketized professionals. The Internet itself has shifted from non-commercial to highly commercial.
He says that the production costs have gone well down, so we'll get more production. There should be a market response, not that we'll go to a non-market environment.
Why adopt economics as a second way of explaining what's going on? It's not clear that Yochai is right that the big change in tech will result in a shift to a nonmarket economy. That's not what happened with the industrial revolution. It's simpler (Occam's Razor) to apply the usual economic view that a reduction in costs will lead to an expansion of production and a bigger market, says Peter.
Yochai responds: It's important not to confuse markets with economics. My claim is exactly that people own the means of production. But the point that the supply curve shifts outward is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. It means the supply of zero-priced goods increases. You're using the term "market" as a metaphor and a seucrity blankie. You need to include the pricing mechanism. My claim is that the price mechanism is of smaller importance in directing action. If you want to affect action you have to accept that there is a unique system that is outside of the price system. And that's what I call nonmarket. To claim that I'm not using economics in this book is surprising.
Second (Yochai says), I thought to say that when you change the costs of the physical capital necessary to act in economically significant ways you get changed behaviorial patterns is not technological exceptionalism. It's like saying the same thing about the steam engine. Costs matter, the combination of physical human etc. capital all matter. One cost component has declined to a point that a whole set of behaviors that were peripheral to the economy are becoming central.
It's not that the market disappears. Rather, the addition of nonmarket actions adds a degree of freedom that can solve some of the problems of the purely market-based system (Yochai says).
Peter: The amateurs are likely to get professionalized.
Yochai: Could be. But what will the policies be?
Yochai says there's a wiki at benkler.org to talk about this type of thing...
[Excellent.] [Tags: f2c yochai_benkler peter_swire economics ]
Posted by self at 02:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[f2c] Commissioner Adelstein
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein begins by playing harmonica with Howard Levy. Really. [As always, the following paraphrases, abbrevites, omits, and gets wrong.]
[I'm sitting next to Susan Crawford who is blogging away. Hers will be the post to read on this.]
Then he touts the E-Rate program. But "we lack a coordinated vision for success...We need to provide for all of our neighbors. This has to be a greater national priority than it is now." A national strategy should have benchmarks. Update the current FCC definition of "high speed" as 200kb [which is laughable — dialup is 56k]. Have standards for expressing what rates customers are getting. We need meaningful competition. "We can't let the broadband market settle into a comfortable duopoly..." We should worry about consolidation. The Congress should use tax incentives to bring access to under-served areas, and more [can't keep up]. We should invest in basic R&D. Be creative and flexible. We need to preserve the creative freedom of the Net. "You're all reinventing democracy, how we share music..." We need to preserve the Net's openness. The AT&T merger brought about an agreement about Net Neutrality that isn't the end of the story but at least refutes the notion that NN can't be defined.
Q:(frankston) The FCC and the Net are incompatible. The Net is what we can get by connecting our home networks from the edge. The FCC defines it in terms of services instead of in terms of bits.
A: We took a step with the AT&T merger....
Q: No, you treat it as a service. We don't need the phone companies to run the Internet.
A: We need an infrastructure. There's a balance here. We need to be realistic.
Q: (isenberg) The chat was wondering how much power you have.
A: I'm one of five commissioners.
Q: (brough) What about cognitive radio opening up spectrum?
A: I was going to talk about that but cut it for time. Maybe I made the wrong choice. Software-defined radio is one of the most exciting developments I've seen and maybe the most revolutionary in spectrum use. We need to find ways to enable them to reach their full fruition. Our engineers are examining the ways they can work. It's a way of doing more with less because, as someone said, G-d isn't making any more spectrum. Of course, we have to be concerned about harmful interference, but in general I'm very high on it.
Q: (JH Snider) Please elaborate on what you said about the carrot-stick approach. The FCC has been 99.99% carrot. In the past few years, the FCC has given away $50B in spectrum allocation. Look at what you did with the MMDS band. You gave it away to Sprint and they haven't built anything. Eight years later they may actually build it out. Where's the stick?
A: It's so much easier to give away carrots. Politicians like to do that. It's happened time and again in spectrum policy.
Q: (Elisha McDonald): Is the definition of Net Neutrality workable? How is it enforceable?
A: It's a baseline and opens up the possibility of having a rational discussion without sloganeering. The Chairman testified that he will enforce it, and he's told me that too. [Joe Plotnick from the chat: "They haven't enforced ANY PRIOR merger conditions, as Kushnick has thoroughly documented."] [Tags: fcc net_neutrality spectrum ]
Posted by self at 01:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[f2c] Journalism panel
jonathan Krim of WashingtonPost.com is leading a panel. On it are: The Dan (Gillmor), Mark Tapscott of The Washington Examiner, Bill Allison of The Sunlight Foundation.
Dan begins by saying that some types of stories, particularly ones that can be broken into small pieces, lend themselves to distributed journalism. He points to a story done by Talking Points Memo and to the possibility of opening up the WSJ's current series on options back-dating. [From the chat, Jerry Michalski points to a Chicago crime map mashup. Steve Crandall points to a map of Iraqi casualties by US geography.]
Bill talks about citizen investigations of House corruption.
Mark says he's "Dan Gillmor's bastard child." He read We the Media and was struck by Dan saying "My readers know more than I do." At the Washington Examiner, he suggested making readers part of the staff. They set up the Washington Examiner Community Action
Jonathan asks whether distributed journalism undermines the notion that journalism is a craft. Does it undermine professionalism? Does it have a negative impact, in addition to the positive impacts?
Mark says that that's the big question. "I call them collaborative networks rather than distributed." "Distributed" has a whiff that it's distributed from on high, he says. Bill says that it results in better journalism. Dan says that if more institutions used these techniques, it would make them more credible. Dan says he thinks it'll be good for journalism, although it may not be good for the traditional institutions of journalism.
Q: (Steve Crocker): This is exciting. What's the reaction going to be?
A: (Jonathan) The sea change will be tremendous at the corporate level, if these changes evolve as we hope.
A: (Dan). Privacy is likely to be the lever by which government shuts down access to data.
Q: Journalism has received the most friendly of challenges, compared to what we've said about other gatekeepers such as the telcos. at DailyKos, there's some media bashing, but more often people will point to stories, or complain that journalists haven't lived up to journalistic standards.
Q: (Yochai Benkler) What you're experiencing is not unusual. College teachers worry about their kids reading Wikipedia. Many companies have been worried about using open source software. All sorts of authorities are worried. The mainstream media itself contributes to the undermining of science by treating everything as 50-50. There's pushback now on this.
[Tags: f2c media msm journa journalism everything_is_miscellaneous]
Posted by self at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 05, 2007
[ef2c] OpenMoko - OpenSource phone
The aim is not to create a mobile phone that mimics a PC. The OpenMoko phone is a "totally open system." Engineers can rewrite the rules and have access to all the building blocks. But he can't sell it in the US because the cellular carriers "whitelist" phone IDs, so they only support the ones they want.
An audience member says that Part 68 means the FCC says that any device not detrimental to the public has to be allowed to connect.
There's much discussion among many learned people using acronyms I never heard of. [Tags: f2c openmoko telephony open_source ]
Posted by self at 04:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
[f2c] panel
At Freedom to Connect , James Salter is talking about the need to get the US connected right. He builds fiber networks. We're at 19 in the world in bandwidth and falling. Fiber can carry 100 terrabytes a second. [Did I hear that right?] YouTube uses more bandwidth than the entire iunterent did 5 years ago. A utility in the southeast is wiring every house with fiber, for $1250 per home, complete.
Who's doing fiber? Verizon, selectively. They've done a million or more homes, but it's going mainly to the rich and the white. Gov't ought to be an enabler of fiber.
John Waclawsky of Motorola says we've evolved from plain ol' telephony that was simple and reliable to having many options. Connectivity is becoming ubiquitous. And complex. But it will get simpler. We will have a smart edge and a facilitating core, as opposed to a smart edge and a dumb core.
Sanjit Biswas of Meraki has what David Isenberg thinks is the "holy grail" of wifi mesh networking. It's a $50 mesh router. It's a spinout of MIT's Roofnet. They want to create networks deployed by communities without involving a telco (except for one person's access). They've been in beta for 6 months. Meraki's market is the "next billion" Internet users. They have 15,000 people connected. It costs users $1-$2 month. Meraki is trying to engage local entrepreneus to create these networks. Today he announces they're building a "huge experiment" in San Francisco, building a network of 1,000 repeaters with free DSL bandwidth - maybe 30 lines would serve the area. [I spoke with Sanjit afterwards and asked him why he won't get sued by the telcos. He said that it's an uncertain area, there are some IPs who are ok with it, they're working mainly in low income areas where a law suit would look really bad, and that he's focused more on areas outside of the US.] [Tags: wifi fiber mesh meraki san_francisco ]
Posted by self at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
[f2c] Yochai Benkler
Yochai Benkler, author of the single most important book about the Internet — The Wealth of Networks — is giving a "theme-setting" talk.
He points to the wide distribution of computer power and "insight, intuition and experience" across the population, as opposed to their concentration during the industrial revolution. The behaviors that have already been there but on the periphery — friendship, cooperation, decency — now move to the core. We see "commons-based prodiuction," i.e., produciton without exclusion from the inputs and outputs. This decentralizes the authority to act. "The commons locates authority to act where capacity resides."
It enables peer production and sharing: cooperation without control or the price system. It is based on social relations. (See "Sharing Nicely.") He points to the success of open source software, and to a mapping of Mars craters by a collaborative process ("Martian clickworkers"). Also, of course, Wikipedia. He asks us to imagine when Wikipedia started that someone predicted that Nature would find it about equal to Britannica in its science articles in five years. He concludes: "We're beginning to see a solution space, rather than a particular phnenomenon." There's a "load balancing of motivations over time" — people can contribute when they want and for whatever reasons they have.
"Building such platforms is hard." "Coase's Penguin" says peer production tasks require modularity, granularity and integration. (He says he's been working on seeing how this works. He's looking at experimental literaure on cooperation and reciprocity, game theory, evolutionary biology and anthropology. "There are more design levers than I initially thought." Factors include: Self-selection, communication, humanization, trust construction, norm creation, transparency, monitoring/peer review/discipline and fairness. Introducing money can muck things up.
So long as large-scale needed to be concentrated, we were llimited to firms and governments, or we could work in decentralized form through the market. Now we're seeing a non-market decentralization via social sharing and exchange...a parallel form of production. We go from recording industry to p2p, Microsoft to open source, Grollier to wikipedia, telecoms to Skype. And there are new "opportunity spaces," from well behaved appliances to production tools. He points to the BBC citizen journalism effort, among other examples. [Yochai moves very quickly. . This is the double fudge Death by Chocolate form of knowledge overload.]
But, this is a threat to incumbent business models. So there's a battle on. Yochai shifts to politics. "The core idea is that people now as a practical matter can do more for and by themselves." And they can do more in loose assoiciation with others. When it comes to democracy, our epxerience "is purely with a mass mediated public sphere." We're beginning to learn what it means to have a networked public sphere. He recounts how concerns about e-voting machines from Diebold were raised by activitists, put out info, and how it spread.
The Internet democratizes. It's boring by now, but important, he says. The first generation objections are generally unfounded: "The Daily Me" fragmentation hasn't happened, and it doesn't polarize the way claimed. For one thing, polarization is a matter of interpretation: Is 85% of links pointing to like-minded sites a sign of polarization or its opposite? And the power law misses the topology of the Net that hooks small sites to large sites as part of a community. Those large sites then can get the word out.
There's a strong "see for yourself" ethic. We come to understand that everything we read is a provisional judgment, rather than training ourselves to seek authority as we did in the mass distribution system.
The Human Development Index depends on who and how produces information, Commons-based and peer production are beginning to help: open source, open academic publishing , free hs science texts in South Africa, BiOS and BioForge out of Australia.
The threat is being played out over institutional ecology. "Rules can make some actions easier or harder." Incumbernts are trying to make distributed production harder, more expensive, subject to permission. And there's a push back to be free and productive. Broadband duopoly vs. muni broadband. "Trusted computing systems" vs. general purpose devices. Software patents vs. free and open source. DMCA vs. sharing and open innovation. There's been a tightening up of all the "toggles," e.g., copyright. "Law has been systematically optimized for control-based business models..."
"But we're beginning to practice new ways of being free and equal human beings." This is subject to a persistent battle.
Now there's a panel: Mark Cooper, Elliot Maxwell, KC Clafy and Gigi Sohn.
Elliot Maxwell talks about Yochai's ideas applied to pharmaceuticals. Among other things, he points to the PLoS library of failed clinical trials.
KC Claffy (Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis). Things we cannot measure on the Internet: The topology from one point to another at any layer. Propagation of routing. Router won't give us its entire state (it's second best routes.) One way delay from two places on the Internet without customized instruments. Can't get an hour of packets from the core. Accurate flow counts. Accurate bandwidth. How much spam, phishing. A commons infrastructure would allow all this. (See this presentation.)
GG Sohn from Public Knowledge first praises The Wealth of Networks. Then she says that her one complaint is that Yochai gives the government too much of a break.
Mark Cooper wants to chart a course between Yochai's optimism and Lessig's pessimism. Yochai points to the use of collaborative production in the material economy. But, in his politics he shrugs off the attacks under the claim that in the long run the superior mode of production will prevail. "I think he's clueless about politics." But, "we can build an alternative politics on Yochai's epistemological and moral base." We need more than the blogosphere. We have not yet shown we can transform the public sphere. The public sphere needs institutions that transform the routine activities of daily life. [Yes, but how we do this except by having good ideas an implementing them? E.g., come up with another Creative Commons.]
Q: (isenberg) Yochai, would you like to address whether loose goosey has a chance against righty tighty?
A: There's a common thread between Gigi and Mark. In the long term we care about social practices rather than policies, laws and institutions, because those are subsystems we occupy and life practices are the outcome. Law matters, but the critical question is: Do we need an affirmative set of rules that will enable things, or is blocking bad law and rules enough? I used to work on reforming laws and was pessimistic, and now I've flipped. "I do think that what we're seeing in the Net roots, in the blogosphere, in the global access to knowledge is that political organization is also shifting away rom the standing institutional model, toward more ad hoc networks that mix different kinds of players nad get updated over time...and that disconnect and reconnect, rather than relying on stable institutions...I see the future of political engagement being much flatter, ad hoc..." [Tags: f2c yochai_benkler economics peer_production ]
Posted by self at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[f2c] Gov. Douglas on covering Vermont
Tom Evslin is interviewing Jim Douglas, 1the governor of Vermont. He is turning Vermont into an e-state. Anywhere you open a laptop, you will be online. [Note: As always, I'm paraphrasing, missing stuff, getting things wrong...Also, no time to re-read before posting., Ulp.]
Gov. Douglas says he's doing this for reasons of public safety, and to help the economy. It's also important for travel and tourism. He says Americans recognize the importance of innovation, but elected political leaders have been "fairly slow to respond." He asks: "How do we apply technology in ways that enable innovation?" They're up to 87% broadband availability. The last 10% will be the hardest, but it's vital, he says. "We can't let anyone go unserved" as Vermont uses the Net for local services. The state will partner with private providers and invest in infrastructure (e.g., fiber optic). The last mile will be provided by private providers. [Bob Frankston in the on-screen chat objects that the state should worry about coverage more than about broadband, and that the private partnerships are mistake.]
Q: What kind of things have you thought of so your providers can stay up to date?
A: That's vital. I'm not a techie. Let's ask Tom Evslin, who's on the tech advisory board...
A: (tom) The goal is 3M by 2010. The goal for 2013 is 20M symmetric [download and upload...yay!]
Q: What's the role of spectrum in your broadband vision? Why aren't the rural governors asking for spectrum reform? 95% of spectrum in VT is unused.
Q: who besides VT is working this way?
A: No one. [Chris Meyer, sitting next to me, points to the RI-WINS program for border-to-border coverage in Rhode Island.]
Q: Verizon has proposed selling its VT infrastructure to FairPoint, a tiny company.
A: We haven't decided whether we'll support this transaction.
Q: I'm with the American Library Ass'n. Libraries are the #1 provider of Net access in VT. What role did libraries play in your planning?
A: Libraries are important. We hope they'll play an even bigger role. E.g., access the Oxford library.
Q: There are challenges connectings kids to the Internet in a school setting, largely because the adults are uncomfortable with it and worry that it's out of control.
A: Parents should be parents. [paraphrase]
Q: How about if the municipality owns the backbone, with private financing. E.g., Burlington
A: There are lots of models that work.
Q: The key question is: Who's going to own this? Will some business interest be able to put in a toll booth, and also decide when the tech gets upgraded in a given corridor? Gov'ts don't biuld roads; they put out bids to build roads. How will the state decide when it's time to upgrade?
A: I'm cautious fiscally.
[Micah Sifry, who is in the house, posts to the chat the Gov's financial profile...] [Tags: f2c vermont wifi broadband net_neutrality ]
Posted by self at 09:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
[f2c] Intro
David Isenberg opens the F2C conference with a ringing invocation to friends, wifi roamin' and countrymen. (Actually, the incredible Howard Levy opened the conference with a harmonica solo. I've heard HL before. He does things with harmonicas that physics doesn't like.)
It's streaming here... [Tags: f2c net_neutrality david_isenberg ]