The Power Of Ambient Awareness

from the getting-to-know-you dept

When I first heard of Twitter I didn't get it. I saw some friends using it, and tested it out for a bit, but again concluded that it just didn't make sense to me to be able to write short, 140-character, explanations of what I was doing -- or to read similar blurbs from other people. But about a year ago, I started using it again, and quickly discovered that it was much more useful and interesting than I had ever expected -- often in totally unexpected ways. Since then, I've run into a bunch of folks who seem to feel exactly the same way. They absolutely did not understand Twitter until they actually started using it, and then suddenly found it incredibly useful in totally unexpected ways. So, I can absolutely understand the many, many people who continue to mock Twitter as being useless -- I felt exactly the same way -- but haven't been able to explain why it is actually useful.

However, Clive Thompson has done an excellent job with his latest piece for the NY Times Magazine, explaining the concept of "ambient awareness" that describes Twitter and things like Facebook's news feed. It's not so much about telling everyone everything you're doing, or knowing everything that everyone is doing, but it does give you an amazing ambient view into what's going on in the lives of whoever you follow, and in an odd way makes you feel much more connected to them than you might otherwise. I know that I've become much closer friends with some folks entirely due to Twitter just because I'm more aware of what they're up to on a regular basis, rather than only talking to them infrequently.

I think the problem is that many people, myself included, originally think of Twitter in similar terms to email or instant messaging, where you're really expected to provide your undivided attention and to respond to what is sent to you. But Twitter doesn't work that way. It really is an "ambient" flow of information about what's happening with lots of different people, which makes you feel much more connected with them. It's great to see Thompson do such a good job explaining why, because despite experiencing it, I couldn't have put the concept into words like he did.

Filed Under: ambient awareness, culture, relationships
Companies: facebook, twitter

How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

from the we're-all-the-creative-class dept

While not enough people recognize it, the real purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive for the creation of more content. The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born. However, that happened back in the day when creating content wasn't easy. You pretty much had to go through a professional process. These days, thanks to new technologies, creating content is exceptionally easy -- and thus, a big part of the very basis for copyright no longer makes sense. We're drowning in content -- and it's not because of the "incentive" of copyright. There are plenty of incentives for creating content these days and very few have anything to do with copyright.

However, because of that bright line, where copyright was really designed for professional content creators, you end up with bizarre conclusions about how communications should be owned. This stems from the fact that these new technologies have blurred the boundaries between content and communications. Traditionally, professional content was about a one-to-many communication system. However, today, most content is really about many-to-many communication. This isn't new. Nearly four years ago, we pointed to some early work by Greg Lastowka and Dan Hunter (who are still doing good work in this field) pointing out how copyright law doesn't make sense for many-to-many communications.

But with that border being made increasingly blurry (and it's only going to get more so), it's causing more and more people to recognize how troublesome existing copyright law is -- because all it does is hinder that kind of communication. That is, rather than acting as incentive for content creation (as is it's basic purpose), it's instead hindering content creation. That's because it only targets one increasingly less relevant type of content creation, while hindering the increasingly more popular one. This realization is occurring to more and more people, and the latest is Jeff Jarvis, who has come to the conclusion that the "creative class" is a myth. And he's right. These days, we're all the creative class -- and copyright is holding us back.

I've long disagreed with those who say that copyright kills creativity, for I do believe that there is no scarcity of inspiration. But I now understand their position better. I also have learned that when creations are restricted it is the creator who suffers more because his creation won't find its full and true public, its spark finds no kindling, and the fire dies. The creative class, copyright, mass media, and curmudgeonly critics stop what should be a continuing process of creation; like reverse alchemists, they turn abundance into scarcity, gold into lead.

In the essay, Jarvis also dives into a fuller recognition of the economics of scarcity and abundance:

But we are shifting, too, from a culture of scarcity to one of abundance. That is the essence of the Google worldview: managing abundance. So let's assume that instead of a scarcity there is an abundance of talent and a limitless will to create but it has been tamped down by an educational system that insists on sameness; starved by a mass economic system that rewarded only a few giants; and discouraged by a critical system that anointed a closed, small creative class. Now talent of many descriptions and levels can express itself and grow. We want to create and we want to be generous with our creations. And we will get the attention we deserve. That means that crap will be ignored. It just depends on your definition of crap.

Welcome to the party, Jeff.

Filed Under: communication, content, copyright, creative class, culture, jeff jarvis

Silicon Valley Isn't Ignoring China; It's Looking For The Opportunity

from the looking-for-opportunities,-not-threats dept

Echoing some of Rebecca McKinnon's claims that we discussed recently, VentureBeat is running an OpEd piece by Rebecca A. Fannin, claiming that Silicon Valley has its head in the sand about the rising "threat" of competition in China. While there certainly may be some folks who aren't paying attention to China, my take on the situation is quite different.

Silicon Valley, as a broad generalization, doesn't worry about "threats." Instead, it tries to treat them all as opportunities. So, if Fannin is upset to see folks focusing on Twitter and the iPhone rather than the fact that China is building up a healthy and rapidly innovating tech economy, she may be focusing on the wrong thing. It does little to "fret" about the next big threat. There are always people warning about this or that big threat. A dozen years ago, it was how Japan was going to take over the tech industry. That didn't exactly happen. Sitting around and worrying about a threat doesn't make much sense.

Instead, it makes sense to pay attention to opportunities. And, many, many, many people in Silicon Valley view China as a huge opportunity. And, yes, new companies and technologies will flow out of China -- and it will present formidable competition -- but, again, competition isn't a real threat, it's an opportunity to do something even better and more innovative. So, I'd disagree with the assertion that Silicon Valley has its head in the sand about the rise of Chinese innovation. We're just focusing on how to make them opportunities.

Filed Under: china, culture, entrepreneurship, opportunities, silicon valley, threats

Keeping The Benevolent Dictators Of Silicon Valley Honest

from the is-that-any-way-to-build-an-internet? dept

I don't think I've ever had more people send me a single blog post than a blog post from earlier this week by Rebecca MacKinnon discussing her worries about "Silicon Valley's benevolent dictators." It's an interesting read that brings up some excellent points. It starts off pointing out the rather insular view many folks have in Silicon Valley about "the rest of the world" and the sort of hubris that comes out of the Valley on a regular basis. That, of course, is nothing new, and is a criticism that has been leveled at Valley inhabitants for many, many years. And, indeed, there is a "clubby" nature to Silicon Valley at times, that has both good and bad sides to it.

MacKinnon points out, correctly, that Silicon Valley-ites also tend to put blind faith into the idea that technology = freedom, and freedom = good, in a rather libertarian sense. Again, that's been said before. But then she points out something of a contradiction in all of this libertarianism, by noting that in fighting against any government regulation while putting all our faith in technology, we actually end up with a system of "benevolent dictators" made up of the folks who control the technology we put our faith in. That is, she worries that in rejecting government regulation, we've approved a defacto dictatorship in the form of the companies we put our trust in. In some sense, this is channelling Jonathan Zittrain's pessimism about what happens when those benevolent dictators turn away from benevolence.

Basically, what both MacKinnon and Zittrain are pointing out is that technology is just a tool. It can be used for good or for bad purposes, and it's part of Silicon Valley's hubris to assume that good will automatically win out in the end. That is, we've been mostly blessed, because the people putting such tools into practice are doing it for good (benevolent) reasons, but there's always a risk that someone else will do something much worse with it. It's a fantastic point, and one well worth thinking about, but I think the assumptions are a little bit wrong.

It's not necessarily a blind faith that "technology" and "capitalism" are flat out "good," but more a recognition that an expanding market tends to open more opportunities for everyone, and the end result of that expansion is good at a macro level. Capitalism tends to remove the barriers for growth, while technology (or, more specifically following Paul Romer's thesis, "ideas") are what then creates that growth. Capitalism is about removing the barriers, and technology and ideas are about enabling that growth. That doesn't mean that there aren't downsides to both -- but the net gain does appear. And, one thing that has become incredibly clear throughout history is that it's nearly impossible to take away that net gain once it appears. And, conversely, asking the government to create those net gains instead almost always fails, due to the difficulty in accurately regulating a market.

In other words, by removing the barriers and enabling the potential, you've almost guaranteed that when someone tries to use the tools for less-than-benevolent reasons, it only opens up strong demand for someone else to provide the equivalent (or better) in a benevolent way again. And, at the same time, in asking the gov't to manage the benevolence, you almost guarantee less opportunities to actually provide good tools, because you've added hurdles they need to jump through. Yes, there can be bumps in the road -- and, no, it's not always a fun process along the way. But enabling for growth is not blind faith. And, there are plenty of checks and balances in place that should these "benevolent dictators" turn authoritarian instead, the end result (or "revolt" as the case may be) can often be strong enough to deal with it.

So, yes, there may be some benevolent dictators in Silicon Valley -- but they'd be hard pressed to successfully ditch that benevolence without paying a huge price.

Related to this, I've recently been doing a presentation for various corporate execs (almost all from outside the US) on "What Makes Silicon Valley Silicon Valley." It's probably my favorite presentation, because it's fun and it usually challenges a lot of the assumptions many people have about why Silicon Valley has been so successful for so long -- that is, while it discusses some of the "common" reasons, it focuses more attention on the hidden, unexpected and accidental reasons for why Silicon Valley became what it did.

The last time I gave it, I ended up getting into a huge discussion with some European execs who pointed out that many of the explanations seem to run almost entirely counter to what many countries who try to set up their "own" Silicon Valley think. That is, many folks look at Silicon Valley and try to replicate the outward manifestations (a good university, some venture capitalists) and miss the underlying details that create the real culture of Silicon Valley, because they almost seem counterintuitive. And the most basic element of this is enabling the free exchange of ideas (that engine for growth). Instead of doing that, most focus on protecting ideas and limiting that free exchange, falsely believing that hoarding information beats sharing information (even with competitors).

So, what happens is that other countries set up their own Silicon Valleys by focusing on protectionism (greater intellectual property rules, non-competes, hugely funded labs), and ignore the power of the cross pollination of ideas and people throughout Silicon Valley, which make it that much more difficult for any single company to abuse the trust of the people they serve. Should any company turn away from benevolence, that openness almost guarantees a more open competitor shows up in return (sometimes with the same employees from the older company). That openness drives innovation, but also keeps these benevolent dictators honest.

Filed Under: benevelent dictators, capitalism, culture, economics, entrepreneurship, growth, silicon valley

Culture Clash Could Doom Microhoo!

from the internal-frictions dept

We don't link to anthropologists much on Techdirt, but Grant McCracken recently wrote a really interesting post on the cultural dimension of corporate mergers. McCracken points out that culture matters a lot in a company's success. Every really successful firm succeeds by developing a distinctive corporate culture that boosts productivity by giving employees a shared set of assumptions about how to do business. In many cases, employees become like the proverbial fish in water: the corporate culture is so pervasive that the employee barely notices it. In other cases, employees explicitly debate the meaning of their shared corporate identity: Google employees commonly debate the most "Googly" way to approach a particular problem.

When two firms merge, the existence of a shared corporate culture can no longer be assumed. Differing cultural assumptions among employees are likely to produce new frictions. One company might be more bureaucratic, work longer hours, have different procedures for evaluating new products, or have any number of other differences in the way they do business. Any of these disagreements can be a barrier to the smooth functioning of the merged company. If the two separate firms are to become a single, organic one, management must find a way to convince employees of the acquired firm to embrace the culture of the acquiring firm. If they fail, the company will limp along with simmering disagreements over strategy and tactics. That was a big part of the problem with the AOL Time Warner merger, for example.

These kinds of cultural assumptions are particularly important in the software industry, where success is often driven by the ability to recruit and retain the most talented programmers. One of Google's key advantage over the last few years has been the perception that it's a more cutting-edge place to work than Yahoo! or (especially) Microsoft. Many smart programmers view Microsoft as too big, bureaucratic, and slow-moving to develop really innovative products, and since they want to work on hot new technologies, they often go elsewhere. Acquiring another multi-billion-dollar company is likely to exacerbate this perception, especially if it causes some of Yahoo!'s best programmers to jump ship in the process.

Filed Under: culture, mergers, software development
Companies: microsoft, yahoo

Adults Encroach Upon Youth Turf Online

from the your-mom-poked-me dept

As technology starts to develop at a quicker and quicker pace, a generational digital divide has started to form between the children, who are growing up amidst all of this new technology, and their parents, who are left to play catch up. So, though most adults are now familiar with technologies like email (which has been around for decades now), more are starting to use instant messaging and social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook. We're not referring to the so-called "online predators" that have been the subject of numerous tv specials. As mom and dad embrace these technologies, today's youths complain that grown-ups are encroaching upon their "turf" and would prefer that they stay on their side of the generational digital divide. Online youths have been quick to embrace the sites like Facebook as somewhat of a social theater where they where they publicly canoodle with crushes, post pictures of the previous night's escapades, and comment openly on each others' profiles. Now, as adults get hip to the internet, these once private worlds are now at risk of being invaded. Back when these adults were kids, there was never really a fear of their parents invading their parties, or crashing their proms, so now some youths feel it necessary to keep a "grown-up friendly" online presence, thereby ruining the appeal of such sites. It might behoove Facebook to introduce more selective sharing levels, lest their most avid users start to lose interest in actually using the site. That said, this problem of over-sharing is not unique to youths -- for quite some time now, adults have been getting into trouble over their online profiles as well.

Filed Under: culture, kids, parents, social networks

You Don't Create A Silicon Valley By Government Fiat

from the takes-a-bit-more-than-that dept

Two separate articles came out in two separate newspapers based 3,000 miles away from each other this past weekend -- but together they demonstrate exactly why so many places have had difficulty creating their own, local versions of "Silicon Valley." Especially during the dot com bubble, it seemed like every country and every state wanted to create some area that was a "local" Silicon Valley. There were silicon islands and silicon prairies and silicon alleys and silicon mountains... and almost all of them went nowhere. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle talks about how the original Silicon Valley was created, through a mixture of strong educational institutions, easy flow of capital and a culture that focused on risk, experimentation, entrepreneurship -- and the free flow of ideas. While the government played a big role in early Silicon Valley culture, it was as a customer, not as the creator of the culture. Contrast that to the story in the Washington Post about how Prince William County set out to create a high tech hub, which is still struggling to get much traction in the high tech world. Rather than paving the way for those critical components to form, the county simply set aside some land and (it appears) some marketing efforts to promote the county as a good place for high tech companies. That seems to be about all that many other "silicon somethings" did in the past decade as well -- forgetting that there's a lot more involved in creating a true high tech hub.

Filed Under: culture, entrepreneurship, silicon valley