A few weeks ago, we ran a little experiment, with our first ever Copia Gaming Hour. We brought together (virtually) a group of people to test run a fun future scenario planning game we created called Hindsight 2030. The game involved players dividing up into teams, having to pick a "target" 2030 headline (each table had a list of 3 to choose from out of a giant list we created), and then create a narrative through five headlines to explain how we reached that 2030 headline. For example, the demo version we created used the following headline:
Each team then also had to create an "epilogue" headline for some event happening after 2030 (we left it open to each team to come up with how far in the future that would be). After teams presented their five headlines leading up to their target, we had everyone in the audience take guesses on what the epilogue headline would be -- which resulted in some pretty hilarious suggestions. For our sample one we had:
2033: Satellite-killer missiles disrupt Pirate Party network, scientists fear collision cascade
This whole thing was an experiment in general about whether or not we could create (1) some quick and easy group games for smart people around topics of interest to us, (2) whether or not people would like them, (3) whether or not the whole process would work, and (4) whether it could be a fun way to get together with people virtually that wasn't yet another "Zoom Happy Hour." As some of you know, over the last few years we (in partnership with Randy Lubin from Leveraged Play) been creating a variety of different games to explain the present or explore the future -- including our big online disinformation election simulation game. But most of those are very involved and complex. We wanted to create a more informal and casual environment to test out some ideas and to have some fun on a Friday afternoon.
Given that this first one was a clear success, we're planning to do more of these. The first one was done entirely by invite to a small group of people we knew. Since this is still very experimental, we're not yet ready to open the doors completely to the public on this, but if you do want to be considered for the invite list to future games, we've now set up a quick form to register your interest. This is not a guarantee that you will be invited to future gaming hours -- as we may still experiment with the setup, the number of attendees, and such -- and some of it may depend on what it is we're looking to test with each game. However, if you want to be on the list of potential invitees, please fill out the form.
As we recently announced, on Monday, we'll be hosting the first in a new series of events we're running, called the Techdirt Greenhouse Salons. The first one is on The Battle For Copyright Reform, and will take place Monday evening in San Francisco (thanks to Automattic and Pinterest for sponsoring/hosting the event). You can request an invite at that page. The event will involve some very brief presentations upfront, but the main event will be the specific discussions among attendees about the upcoming fights for copyright reform (both good and bad) around the globe. If you would like to attend, please fill out the form requesting an invite (though, don't do what one person did and just use the form to rant about how evil we all were for destroying the music industry, without leaving a name or any other such info). It'll be a fun and enlightening event, so let us know if you'd like to join. We've also received tons of feedback from folks interested in future such Greenhouse Salons, so stay tuned...
As we continue to build The Copia Institute, we'll be writing a weekly column & newsletter discussing bigger issues around innovation and abundance. These pieces will be cross-posted here on Techdirt, but we invite you to check them out on the new Copia website as well.
One of the first questions that comes up when I first tell people about the Copia Institute, is "how is this different than 'x'?" with "x" being any number of organizations, from activist groups to trade groups to DC lobbying organizations. And the answer is that we're not any of those things. In fact, while we know many people in such places, and will likely have opportunities to work with them in certain cases, we're focused on doing something very different: letting innovation lead the way, rather than policymakers. That's not to say we're not interested in policy questions, we're just looking for ways to innovate solutions to them rather than waiting for policymakers in distant cities to come up with some new regulation.
Over and over again we've seen policymakers and people from the policy world show up in Silicon Valley and talk about how entrepreneurs need to spend more time "bridging the gap" between DC and Silicon Valley, or something like that. But, almost inevitably, this isn't very effective. There are, certainly, connections to be made, but too often the "connection" that policymakers are talking about is getting Silicon Valley to "play the DC game." And very, very few entrepreneurs and technologists are truly interested in playing that game. To them, it's the antithesis of why they're innovators in the first place. They didn't come to Silicon Valley to change the world just to have to convince a large group of lawmakers (or worse, administrative bureaucrats) to put in place some particular piece of legislation.
They came here to actually innovate.
And this is not to say -- as some people like to -- that the way to treat policymakers is to ignore them, or just tell them to get out of the way. Rather, we think that we can create the best of all worlds by getting entrepreneurs and technologists and innovators to do what the do best and that means coming up with innovative policy ideas that don't necessarily involve waiting for policymakers to create some sort of regulation.
We see examples of this innovative "policy without policymakers" all the time -- and it's what helped inspire the creation of Copia in the first place. One example: fifteen years ago, a group of entrepreneurs, academics, lawyers and activists realized that copyright law and the internet did not mix. And, at the same time, they knew that there was no way Congress would get around to real copyright reform that fixed that. So they built a very innovative solution: Creative Commons. It didn't fix all the problems, but it did create a really useful tool that is widespread today: a very simple licensing mechanism that encouraged content creators to freely and easily license their works, and that allowed the better sharing of information. It has had a profound effect on how content is shared online today -- and it did not require Congress to do anything.
Similar examples are found with things like Twitter's Innovator's Patent Agreement that prevents any of Twitter's patents from being used for trolling. Or the recent "license on transfer" (LOT) program that a bunch of tech companies came up with a year ago.
Sure, in the long run, having good copyright or patent reform would help even more, but that clearly wasn't happening in the short run, so innovators did what they do best: they innovated solutions to help out in the meantime.
Copia's main focus is on bringing together innovators, entrepreneurs, and technologists and looking at the big opportunities and challenges they face -- and looking for ways to innovate solutions that don't require lobbying and waiting around for policymakers to negotiate and bicker and trade. Instead, we're focused on getting actual stuff done -- creating useful programs that can accomplish things today.
That doesn't mean we'll sit out legislative or policy debates. We'll still be actively involved in those, and making sure that our members are well aware of what's happening. But we'll let the existing trade groups, activists and lobbyists focus on those battles most of the time. We're going to keep looking for ways that we can actually get stuff done in a way that Silicon Valley appreciates: by innovating, rather than waiting for someone to give us permission.
As I noted earlier this week, at the launch of the Copia Institute a couple of weeks ago, we had a bunch of really fascinating discussions. I've already posted the opening video and explained some of the philosophy behind this effort, and today I wanted to share with you the discussion that we had about free expression and the internet, led by three of the best people to talk about this issue: Michelle Paulson from Wikimedia; Sarah Jeong, a well-known lawyer and writer; and Dave Willner who heads up "Safety, Privacy & Support" at Secret after holding a similar role at Facebook. I strongly recommend watching the full discussion before just jumping into the comments with your assumptions about what was said, because for the most part it's probably not what you think:
Internet platforms and free expression have a strongly symbiotic relationship -- many platforms have helped expand and enable free expression around the globe in many ways. And, at the same time, that expression has fed back into those online platforms making them more valuable and contributing to the innovation that those platforms have enabled. And while it's easy to talk about government attacks on freedom of expression and why that's problematic, things get really tricky and really nuanced when it comes to technology platforms and how they should handle things. At one point in the conversation, Dave Willner made a point that I think is really important to acknowledge:
I think we would be better served as a tech community in acknowledging that we do moderate and control. Everyone moderates and controls user behavior. And even the platforms that are famously held up as examples... Twitter: "the free speech wing of the free speech party." Twitter moderates spam. And it's very easy to say "oh, some spam is malware and that's obviously harmful" but two things: One, you've allowed that "harm" is a legitimate reason to moderate speech and two, there's plenty of spam that's actually just advertising that people find irritating. And once we're in that place, it is the sort of reflexive "no restrictions based on the content of speech" sort of defense that people go to? It fails. And while still believing in free speech ideals, I think we need to acknowledge that that Rubicon has been crossed and that it was crossed in the 90s, if not earlier. And the defense of not overly moderating content for political reasons needs to be articulated in a more sophisticated way that takes into account the fact that these technologies need good moderation to be functional. But that doesn't mean that all moderation is good.
This is an extremely important, but nuanced point that you don't often hear in these discussions. Just today, over at Index on Censorship, there's an interesting article by Padraig Reidy that makes a somewhat similar point, noting that there are many free speech issues where it is silly to deny that they're free speech issues, but plenty of people do. The argument then, is that we'd be able to have a much more useful conversation if people admit:
Don't say "this isn't a free speech issue", rather "this is a free speech issue, and I’m OK with this amount of censorship, for this reason.” Then we can talk."
Soon after this, Sarah Jeong makes another, equally important, if equally nuanced, point about the reflexive response by some to behavior that they don't like to automatically call for blocking of speech, when they are often confusing speech with behavior. She discusses how harassment, for example, is an obvious and very real problem with serious and damaging real-world consequences (for everyone, beyond just those being harassed), but that it's wrong to think that we should just immediately look to find ways to shut people up:
Harassment actually exists and is actually a problem -- and actually skews heavily along gender lines and race lines. People are targeted for their sexuality. And it's not just words online. It ends up being a seemingly innocuous, or rather "non-real" manifestation, when in fact it's linked to real world stalking or other kinds of abuse, even amounting to physical assault, death threats, so and so forth. And there's a real cost. You get less participation from people of marginalized communities -- and when you get less participation from marginalized communities, you lead to a serious loss in culture and value for society. For instance, Wikipedia just has fewer articles about women -- and also its editors just happen to skew overwhelmingly male. When you have great equality on online platforms, you have better social value for the entire world.
That said, there's a huge problem... and it's entering the same policy stage that was prepped and primed by the DMCA, essentially. We're thinking about harassment as content when harassment is behavior. And we're jumping from "there's a problem, we have to solve it" and the only solution we can think of is the one that we've been doling out for copyright infringement since the aughties, and that's just take it down, take it down, take it down. And that means people on the other end take a look at it and take it down. Some people are proposing ContentID, which is not a good solution. And I hope I don't have to spell out why to this room in particular, but essentially people have looked at the regime of copyright enforcement online and said "why can't we do that for harassment" without looking at all the problems that copyright enforcement has run into.
And I think what's really troubling is that copyright is a specific exception to CDA 230 and in order to expand a regime of copyright enforcement for harassment you're going to have to attack CDA 230 and blow a hole in it.
She then noted that this was a major concern because there's a big push among many people who aren't arguing for better free speech protections:
That's a huge viewpoint out right now: it's not that "free speech is great and we need to protect against repressive governments" but that "we need better content removal mechanisms in order to protect women and minorities."
From there the discussion went in a number of different important directions, looking at other alternatives and ways to deal with bad behavior online that get beyond just "take it down, take it down," and also discussed the importance of platforms being able to make decisions about how to handle these issues without facing legal liability. CDA 230, not surprisingly, was a big topic -- and one that people admitted was unlikely to spread to other countries, and the concepts behind which are actually under attack in many places.
That's why I also think this is a good time to point to a new project from the EFF and others, known as the Manila Principles -- highlighting the importance of protecting intermediaries from liability for the speech of their users. As that project explains:
All communication over the Internet is facilitated by intermediaries such as Internet access providers, social networks, and search engines. The policies governing the legal liability of intermediaries for the content of these communications have an impact on users’ rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to privacy.
With the aim of protecting freedom of expression and creating an enabling environment for innovation, which balances the needs of governments and other stakeholders, civil society groups from around the world have come together to propose this framework of baseline safeguards and best practices. These are based on international human rights instruments and other international legal frameworks.
In short, it's important to recognize that these are difficult issues -- but that freedom of expression is extremely important. And we should recognize that while pretty much all platforms contain some form of moderation (even in how they are designed), we need to be wary of reflexive responses to just "take it down, take it down, take it down" in dealing with real problems. Instead, we should be looking for more reasonable approaches to many of these issues -- not in denying that there are issues to be dealt with. And not just saying "anything goes and shut up if you don't like it," but that there are real tradeoffs to the decisions that tech companies (and governments) make concerning how these platforms are run.
When toy company Hasbro was looking to launch its super fan store for lovers of My Little Pony (tag line: "Super Art for Super Fans"), they decided to do something different. They teamed up with 3D printing startup and marketplace Shapeways and had six designers put their spin on this revered childhood toy. While the commercial sector watched nervously to see if this was the start of brands-gone-wild, what transpired was clear: the 3D printing world took one step closer to the mainstream and one design closer to a major brand.
The result of this strange-bedfellows relationship, thus far, has been some interesting brand improvisation for My Little Pony. Take Can Can Pinkie, a modified version of Pinkie Pie pony designed by Nikita Krutov now available for sale on the Shapeways site. The figurine is dressed in fishnets and ready to can-can right into the history books as some of the first super fan art supported by the brand it's altering.
Although the technology for 3D printing has existed for more than 30 years, it's only recently become part of the popular consciousness -- as companies like MakerBot and Pirate3D made national news first for creating low-cost 3D printers and then for blasting through their Kickstarter campaigns. And designers today are taking full advantage of these lower cost technologies to personalize or in some cases remix existing designs into something never before imagined. Now designers and remixers are prototyping and often making new iPhone cases, jewelry, ceramic vases, and toy cars that are going from concept to creation faster than ever before.
Among big companies, though, Hasbro is still virtually unique in its willingness to partner with Shapeways. Most brand managers -- the people whose job it is to keep you aware that an iPhone is an iPhone and that M&Ms are M&Ms -- still do not want fans altering their product. It's marketing 101 that control of a brand is the best way to ensure its success.
Altering that basic business tenet is an uphill battle, but Hasbro's willingness to experiment could be the beginning of a hopeful trend that builds bridges to fans through the use of technology, and that allows the 3D printing industry to blossom.
So where is this technology headed? Straight to Imaginationville. 3D printing allows us to imagine a future where our children will be able to learn about their neighborhoods and then actually print a 3D model of their neighborhood. They may even be able to create something that embodies the changes they imagine would improve where they live. It's given us a world where fan art, instead of being relegated to the back of notebooks, can be made into real figures.
With such potential on the horizon, it's no wonder people can't stop talking about the future of 3D printing. At a session on 3D printing that the Copia Institute hosted this month, a cluster of tech lawyers, advocates, and developers sat around a table at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, California brainstorming ways to fast-forward the 3D printing industry through the tumult the music industry faced in the '90s when it was rocked by online music sharing. That tortured pathway involved three steps: music labels suing people for pirating, trying unsuccessfully to implement digital rights management, and finally a move to the current system of allowing consumers to buy only the music they want. (When was the last time it occurred to you that you had to buy a whole album?)
As Natalia Krasnodebska, Shapeways' community manager, put it at the Copia Institute roundtable, many in 3D printing want the industry to skip straight to the third step, eliminating years of fitfully struggling to find the right way to get products to consumers who want them and making money doing it.
With seemingly limitless possibility, however, comes the concern about how to keep the technology viable as it advances so quickly.
3D printing is dramatically reducing the cost of prototyping, which in turn is reducing manufacturing costs. It's helping everyone from big business to doctors designing prosthetic limbs work faster and work cheaper. For that reason, not to mention the creativity it's unleashed in the average Joe, 3D printing is worth keeping viable.
Here are a few ways we can make that happen:
Develop a model revenue sharing agreement. This could be done by a group made up of both company representatives and designers facilitated by a third party like the Copia Institute, and would give 3D printing designers and brands a clear way to work together, eliminating potential legal battles.
Tell the stories of when designers who use 3D printers and companies partner successfully. The two groups don't have to be at odds, and real world examples, like the Hasbro/Shapeways partnership, will help companies feel more comfortable experimenting with having fans wax creative with their brands.
Legal issues can kill innovation before it starts. We should expand the capacity of legal service groups, like New Media Rights, that are already helping makers and entrepreneurs using 3D printers navigate challenges from brands, and connecting them with companies that may want to work with them.
Work with schools to get printers into the classroom. To enlarge the 3D printing community, and to expand access to the technology, 3D printing companies should work with schools to get printers in the classroom. Companies like Autodesk are already partnering with schools to provide free design software. 3D printers could be coupled with that effort and others like it.
The Hasbro/Shapeways partnership is a model that more companies and designers should use, but it's only a starting place. Generating models that companies can use and test will let us continue to expand on creative uses for 3D printing.
Megan Garcia is a Senior Fellow for New America. This post was originally appeared in a slightly different form on Medium, and was written after attending our Copia Institute inaugural summit.
A week and a half ago, we launched the Copia Institute, our new business network/think tank. The two day event was really quite amazing, and tons of great ideas came out of the discussions. We'll be sharing some videos and some ideas from all of those discussions as we go forward, but wanted to start out by sharing the presentation I gave at the kickoff, explaining just what we were trying to do, inspired by the Homebrew Computer Club forty years ago. You can see the opening presentation here:
As mentioned in the presentation, one of the things that we're focused on is bringing together lots of smart people to think through creative approaches to big challenges, that don't require waiting for bureaucrats and policymakers to make some big decision -- and the number of great ideas that came out of the summit directly, and in a series of conversations since then, has been astounding. In fact, there are probably too many good ideas. However, in the coming days, weeks and months, we'll continue sharing with you the followup on some of these discussions, including additional gatherings, new research and new projects, all designed to help drive innovation forward.
I know that many of you who were unable to make the inaugural summit have expressed interest in staying informed and helping out as we launch various initiatives. Please, stay tuned, as there will be plenty of opportunities to join in the discussions and to help accomplish some amazing things.
